holdemluck vs pt3 allin ev graph

[zubs1aa]

- since I win the hand shouldn't the lines be the same? (if the answer is no, then i think the graph oughta be fixed so that AIEV only moves away from zero/up or down as a result of all in hands...it's still confusing the $%^& ought of people as implemented.)

No.
When you are all in the EV graph will NEVER match the amount you won (apart from the river when you're either 100% or 0% to win).
If you're 90% to win a $10 pot (at the time of the all-in) then the EV graph shows you winning $9, but you can never actually win $9 - you either win $10 or $0, so the graphs diverge.

my bad. Right they never should be the same - unless you have teh stone cold nuts on the flop for instance (flopped quads, and villain can't make a better hand)

But, they should be alot closer then they show in teh example I gave.

zubs,

Could you attach that HH to a ticket so I can get it to the developers for further investigation? It's much easier for us if we have these things in a ticket.

I could.... but- plz take this the right way- sometimes it's easier for ME to just give you info in a post. In this case I provided an exmaple and asked if I got it right or not and had no clue whether it was ticket worthy. If you see it and go *oh, that ought to be a ticket*, sometimes (alot of times) I wonder why you can't just create a ticket or link to outstanding bug when yo usee that and link to the post. All the info is there and the HH is fully formed. You have all the info already.

I write enough of these things in such detail and submit....I'd think on occasion the devs or mods or whoever could just link it on their own to existing bug or ticket. And I am sure there is an existing Bug outstanding on this issue- impossible for their not to be. Wasn't trying to turn some innocent browsing while unable to sleep / looking for some more understanding of how the thing works to turn into an extra 30 minutes of documentation...... :?

[zubs1aa]

- since I win the hand shouldn't the lines be the same? (if the answer is no, then i think the graph oughta be fixed so that AIEV only moves away from zero/up or down as a result of all in hands...it's still confusing the $%^& ought of people as implemented.)

No.
When you are all in the EV graph will NEVER match the amount you won (apart from the river when you're either 100% or 0% to win).
If you're 90% to win a $10 pot (at the time of the all-in) then the EV graph shows you winning $9, but you can never actually win $9 - you either win $10 or $0, so the graphs diverge.

second point.

An allin graph should show ONLY allin situations. Just as their are 2 lines for showdown vs non-showdown, there should be 2 lines for allinev: Expected and Earned....but like I said DO NOT mix in any non allin hands with those lines. It is so so misleading to look at those lines bounce around with your winnings when what you are really looking for is the delta between those lines.

As currently implemented you mix winnings total with allin EV. completely counter-intuitive!

Do you guys understand the distinction I am making? (thsi is a diff question then how you choose to actually implement of course.)
But I'm hoping you can see why the existing graph makes no sense to the user. It's not a sensible way to present the data. Please let me know if you at least understand my point, even if you might philosophically disagree or just can't / won't implement it that way.

Sometimes I wonder if yo uare able to get out of the box enough to think about how the typical user looks at data. because in this case, I believe a poll would find the existing EV graph near worthless..... this isn't me crapping on you or the product.. it;'s saying "hey, we all know it's been screwed up for ages, how about getting it right if you are going to say it's*improved* "

[kraada]

I think the idea behind mixing it as we did was that your all-in EV line in our method will show you what you "should" have won if you ran at expected value. Your hands that weren't all-in won't be affected, so you can kind of "take the luck out of the graph" to some extent. Personally I'm not a big fan of all-in type graphs as an analysis tool in general, so I admit I don't have a big emotional stake in this one. I certainly agree we should get any remaining bugs fixed though. I know they've been worked on recently.

With regards to asking for things in tickets, the reason that we do it is not to cause you pain or make it hard on you, it's just the best way for us to get things to the developers to get fixed. Even if you just submit the ticket with the HH pasted in and a link to the thread in the reference field, it makes it a lot easier for us to sort things - we link tickets to bugs in our internal bug tracker. Forum threads can't be linked.

[zubs1aa]

I think the idea behind mixing it as we did was that your all-in EV line in our method will show you what you "should" have won if you ran at expected value. Your hands that weren't all-in won't be affected, so you can kind of "take the luck out of the graph" to some extent. Personally I'm not a big fan of all-in type graphs as an analysis tool in general, so I admit I don't have a big emotional stake in this one. I certainly agree we should get any remaining bugs fixed though. I know they've been worked on recently.

With regards to asking for things in tickets, the reason that we do it is not to cause you pain or make it hard on you, it's just the best way for us to get things to the developers to get fixed. Even if you just submit the ticket with the HH pasted in and a link to the thread in the reference field, it makes it a lot easier for us to sort things - we link tickets to bugs in our internal bug tracker. Forum threads can't be linked.

I'm not real tied to that graph either- it just annoys me when i see useless stuff. I do find ab am running good or bad graph useful at times, if only to figure out if I'm running bad or just playing bad at the moment.

and re links of thrads to tickets? I do it all the time.

Create ticket and I just past in the link to the thread so i don't have to write it twice.