Quick, easy hourly EV question

[Mase31683]

Oh jeez, that's insane. That's ~32,250 hands per day! Even at 2k hands/hour that's 16 hours a day every day.

nothanksjeff

My brain didn't even register what you wrote correctly. I thought you were saying $3k+ per day @ $200nl, and I was thinking, "Yeah, that's pretty solid"

Then realized you said $Two NL and over the course of a month making $3k

 

[Logan2]

Yeah, it was $2k from tables plus rakeback, let me find the screenie.

I think hourly was low like $5/hr, but yay, was like 400+ hours played.
​

 

[Logan2]

There, what a sicko




Couple months like that and probably end with brain damage, not worth it tbh.

 

[BenjiHustle]

Every day is over 12 hours logged^^^^

I'm just not sure $5/hour is worth logging that much playing time.

 

[Logan2]

You know, what jump more to me is the ev$.

After a million hands he ends $200+ under ev, and is 2nl!!!. We are talking more than 100bi's underev after 1 million hands!!!

So, for someone that load around 20k hands a month is going to take more than 4years of play to get that 1mill hands, and even after those 4years ev still not get even, so the true is that for some (a lot) of us, the long term maybe never get there.

So, why should even bother with ev?.


​

 

[BenjiHustle]

I don't bother with EV and never really have. I live in a land of fairies and rainbows where it rains candy and I never run below EV. I try to set it up to where I'm coming from behind in some hands, but I pay for it by stealing a bunch of smaller pots. Basically what I'm suggesting is that EV is a stat that you can easily manipulate.

 

[micromachine]

WTF never seen that before, that's insane.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

EV is still the closest approximation for outcomes though. Besides, 100 BI below EV in a million hands has to be like bottom 0.1% outcome probability or something. Not like it's common. To say the least.

 

[BenjiHustle]

I'm guessing the EV discrepancy is coming from playing in "robot mode" and mass multi-tabling. There were probably very few instances in which this player gii bad, or even slightly bad, in relation to the number of hands played. Gii good against a bunch of fish that often is going to turn out a lot of bad beats over a million hands, in comparison.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

That doesn't really make sense. If he's gii a ton of times good then the fact that he does it a ton of times means he has a better chance of being close to EV than someone who hasn't played as many hands. It's just probability.

 

[BenjiHustle]

But then if he's never behind, he never closes the gap on that discrepancy by coming back from behind, is what I'm thinking. Basically, it's an ever-widening canyon as opposed to something more along the lines of a vagina. I couldn't think of a better analogy for something in which the gap opens and closes elastically. Forgive me.

 

[rhombus]

But then if he's never behind, he never closes the gap on that discrepancy by coming back from behind, is what I'm thinking. Basically, it's an ever-widening canyon as opposed to something more along the lines of a vagina. I couldn't think of a better analogy for something in which the gap opens and closes elastically. Forgive me.

shouldnt the above be in a thread all on its own and not under Poker lol

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Erm, this strikes me as a really common fallacy with regards to getting it in "ahead" or "behind."

When you win the pot as an 80% favorite, you're still running above EV. Your expected value was 80% of the pot, but you won 100% of the pot. It's even better illustrated when you get it in as a coin flip. You can't run at EV for one coin flip. You'll either win the whole pot or win nothing - even though your EV was 50% of the pot.

But if you run that spot hundreds of times, the probability is very high that you will be CLOSE to EV. Same with any other spot where we have some EV and don't hit it exactly. Run it a bunch of times and you will be close to your EV on average.

 

[BenjiHustle]

I dunno. I was just thinking that that gap is gonna widen as you're getting f*cked and only gets the chance to close once you're no longer getting f*cked. What an awful analogy. I still can't think of a better one though. I must be some sort of dense.

EDIT: Ohhhhhhhhhhhh! I never realized that, Scourrge. Thank you. I get it now.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Oh and it's neither, since future outcomes don't depend on past outcomes lol. It's not ever-widening or elastic.

 

[Mase31683]

That is insanity, the fact that he's so far behind EV is funny.

On a side note: I HATE the way HEM calculates EV. It only calculates at the point of all in, so if you had $200 stacks and get $199 in with AA v KK and on the turn a King spikes and you put that last $1 in, then your $EV for the entire hand is calculated as 4% even though $199 went in at 80%+ and $1 went in at 4%

*EDIT*

Just cuz I hate it so much and not sure if everyone understands the implication.

The way money actually went in: (Let's assume the $199 preflop, flop check/check, last $1 in on turn)
.8(+$199) + .2(-$199) = ($159.20) + (-$39.80) = $119.40
.04(+$1) + .96(-$1) = .04 + (-$.96) = -$0.92

Total EV for hand: $118.48

The way HEM calculates it:

.04(+$200) + .96(-$200) = ($8) + (-$192) = -$184.00

Not sure if this could cause odd EV results based on personal playing tendencies

 

[Matt Vaughan]

You do realize that it's called "all-in EV," right? And so far as I know every other tracking software uses it as well. PT4 at minimum. Doing multi-street EV has flaws too though, since it doesn't account for ranges.