The official pokerstars hyper-sng trash can! und Rezepte für Apfelstrudel
01-14-2015
, 03:55 PM
Quote:
Winrate can be tracked, but true EV cannot, that is mathematically impossible using today's technology. It could in theory be accomplished with the use of a Neural Net to predict opponent ranges, but as we currently stand a tracker cannot determine true EV. A human being can do this by manually populating the range but that would be inconvenient to stop the game just to enter in ranges, an automated tracker cannot because it cannot predict opponent ranges. In probability theory, the expected value of a random variable is intuitively the long-run average value of repetitions of the experiment it represents. In poker the fixed component is your hand and the size of the pot, the variable is your opponents RANGE. A fixed hand at showdown is not your opponent's range, it is just one hand of many that your opponent may have - which is why a tracker cannot calculate true EV. Instead we calculate things like All-In Equity Adjusted Winnings, which is your hand equity multiplied by the size of the pot. Many players mistakenly think this is EV, but in reality it is night and day different measurements of expectation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
- TT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
- TT
I have been banging on ITT so many times the need to calculate a $ev decision accurately yourself. It is far more informative. Personally, I input players' ranges (from PT4) into PPT's SQL simulation, then combine this with an online ICM tool and input all this into my Excel spreadsheet to work out the $EXPECTED VALUE of my decision.
People are lazy though and expect the software to do it for them which it cannot. Period.
So basically the demand is for you to fix something you haven't delivered yet! Lol.
Do you have any specific links to Neural Net and poker?
On a side note I would love to work for PT
. Do you have any UK operations?
Last edited by streityboy; 01-14-2015 at 04:06 PM.
01-14-2015
, 04:36 PM
Just kidding, streity. But as you correctly said, there must be some room between calling "bull****" or "lol" on someone and disagreeing by saying this is an exaggeration.by the way, I didn't complain as harsh as playnde, just confirmed that the problem is there in the beginning and commented on possible duration. Therefore, I didn't send any hands/tickets, don't even know how that works.
Last edited by Brunolf; 01-14-2015 at 04:39 PM.
Reason: added sending in hands
01-14-2015
, 05:46 PM
Ķ
As this is clearly not a level I am slightly shocked�� 90 % are just wrong. This is not about being a stickler it's about what is correct Juicy....or should I say Joosy - heh what's the difference��
BTW Did you know only about 20% of online poker players are winners?
I don't think I have the competency to express it even remotely as well as the PT link. It offers smash out the park clarity that is massively required ITT.
I might try and come up with a good demonstration of it though if I have the time.
Ty for spelling my name right Brun ☺ You have an edge there over the Anglophiles.
Don't worry I have a man crush on you knowing the difference here
BTW Did you know only about 20% of online poker players are winners?
I don't think I have the competency to express it even remotely as well as the PT link. It offers smash out the park clarity that is massively required ITT.
I might try and come up with a good demonstration of it though if I have the time.
Quote:
streity is right in this one, but this might be an explanation for the posts Just kidding, streity. But as you correctly said, there must be some room between calling "bull****" or "lol" on someone and disagreeing by saying this is an exaggeration.
by the way, I didn't complain as harsh as playnde, just confirmed that the problem is there in the beginning and commented on possible duration. Therefore, I didn't send any hands/tickets, don't even know how that works.
Just kidding, streity. But as you correctly said, there must be some room between calling "bull****" or "lol" on someone and disagreeing by saying this is an exaggeration.by the way, I didn't complain as harsh as playnde, just confirmed that the problem is there in the beginning and commented on possible duration. Therefore, I didn't send any hands/tickets, don't even know how that works.
Don't worry I have a man crush on you knowing the difference here
01-16-2015
, 07:30 PM
01-17-2015
, 11:27 AM
can play today hooorraaaaay
01-17-2015
, 06:34 PM
It's a Harrington concept.
M is the ratio of your current chip stack to both blinds. Add the 2 blinds together and divide your chips by this number to give you your M number.
For example if you have T6000 chips, the small blind is T100, and the big blind is T200, then your M value is T6000/T300=20.
Buzz
M is the ratio of your current chip stack to both blinds. Add the 2 blinds together and divide your chips by this number to give you your M number.
For example if you have T6000 chips, the small blind is T100, and the big blind is T200, then your M value is T6000/T300=20.
Buzz
01-22-2015
, 06:26 AM
I think this was the longest ever hyper for me.
Villian had 0,5 bb like 12 times.
Aaaand I know it doesn't really matter but I won I was never so happy about winning a 1.5$ hyper
Villian had 0,5 bb like 12 times.
Aaaand I know it doesn't really matter but I won
I was never so happy about winning a 1.5$ hyper
01-22-2015
, 09:09 AM
u guys aren't trolling?
in that case -
achievement unlocked for me
in that case -
achievement unlocked for me
01-22-2015
, 01:00 PM
y, I was all in last 40 hands, every hand. guy would just fold fold fold, and survived every time when he was all in, triple up, and repeat. sick run