PokerStars tournament all-in pot equities v. pots won
Steve Brecher
PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
drawing dead. The great majority of the tournaments were multi-table; a few
were two-table, and fewer still single-table. There were a total of 3420
all-in hands (usually two per pot, but in a few instances three or even
four).
For each all-in, I collected the player's equity in the pot at the time of
the all-in and the proportion of the pot the player won (1.0 for a win, 0.0
for a loss, 0.5 for a two-way split, etc.) The pot equity of a hand is the
average proportion of the pot that a player would win over the long run.
For example, in the following sample Hold 'Em Showdown output,
990 pots with board cards: Tc 9d 7s
9h9s 8d8s
% chance of outright win 74.040404 24.343434
% chance of win or split 75.656566 25.959596
expected return, % of pot 74.848485 25.151515
fair pot odds:1 0.336032 2.975904
pots won: 741.00 249.00
--the "expected return, % of pot" result shows the pot equity of each hand.
The chi square statistic does not indicate significant variance of actual
from expected (3392.7 on 3421 hands). A plot of rolling 30-"bin" averages
of sorted equity vs. pots won looks linear; the linear regression is
y = 0.9908x + 0.0045
which is not significantly different from the theoretical y = 1.0x + 0 that
describes the "no dealing bias" case.
Looking at the "big" favorites/underdogs, and expressing the favorite's
chances as odds against the underdog:
Odds at least # of hands Avg equity Avg pot won
2:1 1121 0.8123 0.8134
3:1 753 0.8617 0.8597
4:1 623 0.8806 0.8777
9:1 260 0.9383 0.9321
In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.
(I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
my own.)
--
For mail, please use my surname where indicated:
st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Runner Runner
> Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
> drawing dead.
<snip some details of a much needed study>
> In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.
>
> (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
> my own.)
A couple of questions:
What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?
Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
they chosen and controlled?
Do you, Paul Pudaite, or anyone involved in this study work in the
poker industry or financially related fields.
Did PokerStars provide any assistance with your study.
You are a well known and I believe respected RGP poster. I am sure
you are also well known personally by many on RGP. I am not trying to
undermine your work but I think it is important to know where it is
coming from. This is not just your theory or strictly an opinion. It
is a presentation of data and conclusions and as such could assume the
status of fact.
This is great stuff if not tainted either by sample size, statistical
problems, or other bias. The crux of the question surrounding online
poker site dealing/randomness integrity revolves around lack of
accountability. When any audit is done factors in addition to the
results assume equal importance. Integrity is important when
examining integrity.
I would simplly like to see the bar set higher for acceptance of
results in terms of non-statistical bias. Lord knows if you posted
something that appeared statistically biased you would hear about it
here on RGP. Let's make the accountability requirements equally high.
That is, at least as much as can be done in the anonymous world of
newsgroup personalities and unregulated offshore online poker sites.
RR
AlwaysAware
Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do $100 tourney's have less
"suck out" potential than freerolls? And what portions did your hand histories
represent?
Thanks
Joan
>(Runner Runner)
Gary Carson
>I am also curious about the buy in amounts of these tournament hand
histories. >Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do $100
tourney's have less>"suck out" potential than freerolls? And what
portions did your hand histories>represent?
Don't forget sunspots and tides.
A good conspiracy theory cannot be killed.
AlwaysAware
I am not doubting Steve's work, and I think it is good that he did it.. I am
not a math whiz nor am I a conpiracy subscriber... but common sense tells me
that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the higher buy
in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get called by
JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill play some
part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain suck
outs?
Joan
>garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
Chris O'Connor
> Don't forget sunspots and tides.
>
> A good conspiracy theory cannot be killed.
Is this a 'planet X' reference, Gary?
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
>Hey:
>
>I am not doubting Steve's work, and I think it is good that he did
it.. I am
>not a math whiz nor am I a conpiracy subscriber... but common sense
tells me
>that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the
higher buy
>in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get
called by
>JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill
play some
>part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain
suck
>outs?
I see, my sarcasm was misplaced, sorry about that.
You don't fully understand what he did.
You're probably right that games with more people willing to go allin
when far behind will have more longshot draws hit. That's just
because they'll have more longshot draws.
There's no real way to test whether more draws are attempted than
expected because the number of draws expected depends on playing
decisions.
What he looked at was the number of draws made given a certain number
of attempts. We can compute that expected number. We can't predict
how many times people draw to gutshots, but we can predict how often
those attempts will get there. That's what he looked at -- the
frequency of hits relative to the frequency of attempts.
Yoiu might expect the frequency of gutshots made to be higher in
smaller events, but not the relative frequency.
Steve Brecher
> "Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message
news:<ba8uf...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> > PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> > players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players
was
> > drawing dead.
>
> <snip some details of a much needed study>
>
> > In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than
expected.
> >
> > (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors
are
> > my own.)
>
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?
>
> Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
> they chosen and controlled?
No, they came from a signle source -- myself. The hand histories are
those of all the PokerStars tournaments in which I have played.
> Do you, Paul Pudaite, or anyone involved in this study work in the
> poker industry or financially related fields.
No.
> Did PokerStars provide any assistance with your study.
No.
Steve Brecher
> I am also curious about the buy in amounts of these tournament hand
histories.
> Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do $100 tourney's have
less
> "suck out" potential than freerolls?
They were all hold 'em tournaments (I forgot to mention that in my original
post). Almost all were no-limit or pot-limit; a couple were limit. The
majority were $50+5; some were $200+15 and a few were other buy-in amounts.
None were freerolls.
I don't have any breakdowns of the results by type of tournament.
> And what portions did your hand histories represent?
(If this means what portion of each tournament--) The portion from the
start of the tournament until I busted out or won, for all-in hands at
tables at which I was playing.
Steve Brecher
> ... common sense tells me
> that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the higher
buy
> in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get
called by
> JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill play
some
> part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain suck
> outs?
Perhaps -- I don't know -- there may be more all-ins and hence a higher
absolute number of suck outs in some kinds of events as opposed to other
kinds. What I was studying, however, was, given that two or more players
were all in, how well hands held up vis-a-vis how well they should hold up
if the cards dealt to the board were randomly selected from the set of
unseen cards.
Steve Brecher
> ... The hand histories are
> those of all the PokerStars tournaments in which I have played.
Correction: I started collecting hand histories after I played some
tournaments. So the hand histories used in the study were those of all the
PokerStars tournaments in which I have played since I started collecting
hand histories.
AlwaysAware
>I see, my sarcasm was misplaced, sorry about that.
>
sarcasm only works on me when the subject matter isn't already over my head..
though, I figured it for (most likely) that - I took the opportunity to clarify
the reason for my question.
As for the rest of your post, it will take me awhile to digest, expect an
answer in 2004 :-)
Joan
Alix Martin
Side question : in NL holdem preflop all-ins, for the different hands,
how much ev is won/lost in comparison with folding before the all-in
bet ? Raising hands can afford to have negative ev when called since
they win when not called. Calling hands should have positive ev, but
is this true for the KQ and JT that many people take all in ?
Additional classication possibilities : (players left to act * all-in
move / pot size) , Steve Brecher / random pokerstar players
Alix
Hristo Kasabov
Why make this shuffel ? and why is not fair ?
Why support the biggest stack ? Biggest stack won on any 2 cards ?
And why river never help me and always help against me ?
I watch lot of tounaments with pro players i never see these shits against them.
Watch this.
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg8.png -- only in yopur dream can happen this.
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg10.png -- what is the chance for that ?
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg11.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg12.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg13.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg14.png - haha sure.....all in preflop sure.
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg15.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg16.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg17.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg18.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg19.png -- what in the name of .. is this ? re-raise after the flop ? he was 100% sure will won. why ? i am half man or i not deserve to win ?
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg20.png - this is 5 minutes ago. all in preflop by me, called by idiot.
i have ower 1000 saved hands. like these.
i think is good idea put them on youtube, twitter, facebook. If they are deleted will make own site - is not hard..Players must know what will face when play in pokerstars.
Why this was not happen on Fullilt for example ? There AA was AA, KK was KK, and 8 9 beat AK 1 to 100 hands.
Now who smart man can explain these rivers.
Before put some stupid answer like - it`s poker, happen, or badbeat, grab deck cards and see after how many hands will come these rivers.
becouse i try this and the result was amazing. 1 to 100 hands put this 1%.
I will wait to see who will answer, for now i am sure will have zero answers.
aahh...@ya.ru
aahh...@ya.ru
aahh...@ya.ru
http://ru.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=41168&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=25
Сегодня сыграл 5 часов по 20 столов, и минус 40 баин
мой ник: Muha 77
shi...@rkmail.ru
> Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was drawing dead. The great majority of the tournaments were multi-table; a few were two-table, and fewer still single-table. There were a total of 3420 all-in hands (usually two per pot, but in a few instances three or even four).For each all-in, I collected the player's equity in the pot at the time of the all-in and the proportion of the pot the player won (1.0 for a win, 0.0 for a loss, 0.5 for a two-way split, etc.) The pot equity of a hand is the average proportion of the pot that a player would win over the long run. For example, in the following sample Hold 'Em Showdown output,990 pots with board cards: Tc 9d 7s9h9s 8d8s % chance of outright win 74.040404 24.343434 % chance of win or split 75.656566 25.959596 expected return, % of pot 74.848485 25.151515 fair pot odds:1 0.336032 2.975904pots won: 741.00 249.00--the "expected return, % of pot" result shows the pot equity of each hand. The chi square statistic does not indicate significant variance of actual from expected (3392.7 on 3421 hands). A plot of rolling 30-"bin" averages of sorted equity vs. pots won looks linear; the linear regression is y = 0.9908x + 0.0045 which is not significantly different from the theoretical y = 1.0x + 0 that describes the "no dealing bias" case.Looking at the "big" favorites/underdogs, and expressing the favorite's chances as odds against the underdog:Odds at least # of hands Avg equity Avg pot won2:1 1121 0.8123 0.8134 3:1 753 0.8617 0.85974:1 623 0.8806 0.87779:1 260 0.9383 0.9321In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected. (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are my own.)-- For mail, please use my surname where indicated: st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
На данную "ЛАБУДУ" я изложил свои аргументы, но ПОСТ мой УДАЛИЛИ, так как ВОЗРАЗИТЬ ОКАЗАЛОСЬ НЕЧЕГО. В своем посте я назвал МОШЕННИКОМ "автора" сей "лабуды", который занимается ЭЛЕМЕНТАРНЫМ ОБМАНОМ, выгораживающий Покер Старс, где МОШЕННИЧЕСТВО и ПОДЛОГ-ОБЫЧНОЕ ДЕЛО!!!
Требую ВЕРНУТЬ мой пост, а если ВОЗРАЗИТЬ НЕЧЕГО-НЕ ВРИТЕ!!!
Firstname Lastname
You did your analysis all wrong. First, you need to select hands where one opponent was dominated.
You'll find that grace from pokerstars is given at a higher rate the more you are dominated. You need something like AA vs KK....or AA vs AK....things like that.
Furthermore, you need to find a way to track the results of the dominating hands after they've been on a recent rush.
What usually happens after a big rush, is Stars gives you an unbelievable run of powerful hands that gets clobbered back to back to back and brings you right back down if you go all-in with them.
florea_i...@yahoo.com
florea_i...@yahoo.com
a joke invented (random shuffle cards)how in earth can they recognise is a cowenry they must find a reason to hide that is a cowenry because otherwise they will lose raiting
florea_i...@yahoo.com
florea_i...@yahoo.com
shi...@rkmail.ru
cistern...@libero.it
koukos...@gmail.com
ειδα πολλεσ φερεσ θεση να νικαει παντα και με χειτερο φυλλο
στατιστικα μπορειτε να μου πειτε πωσ γινετε 3 φορεσ οι αα να χασουν απο αQ στο ιδιο τουρνουα
στα 3 πρωτα φυλλα να εχεισ 3 ιδια ο αντιπαλλοσ τιποτα η ζευγαρη μεγαλυτερο απο το δικο σου και να χανεισ στα επομενα 2 φυλλα απο χρωμμα κεντα με 3 μεγαλυτερα του αντιπαλου
αν σου τυχαινει με ποσοστο50% τα παραπανω δεν τρεχει κατι?
collants...@yahoo.fr
And the river ?! Decide 99% of time the game !
collants...@yahoo.fr
Winner of the million just after subscribe on pokerstar ! Her 11th MTT, he win the million. After win, win ! Thats a winner count !
2012 October 63/354 18% 2+1 11% $20,564
2012 September 217/1373 16% 7+10 12% $154,933
2012 August 168/1173 14% 12 10% $90,804
2012 July 114/822 14% 7+1 10% $46,650
2012 June 115/933 12% 8 9% $76,451
2012 May 137/1108 12% 10 9% $211,441
2012 April 97/777 12% 4 8% $55,226
2012 March 162/1165 14% 12 11% $99,308
2012 February 275/1754 16% 12 10% $156,606
2012 January 227/1579 14% 22+2 11% $163,778
2011 December 166/1225 14% 16 10% $116,774
2011 November 193/1393 14% 22 11% $112,957
2011 October 177/1353 13% 15+1 10% $136,914
2011 September 229/1434 16% 16+4 11% $152,243
2011 August 185/1330 14% 23+1 10% $97,677
2011 July 205/1444 14% 24 10% $98,350
2011 June 141/949 15% 12 10% $82,244
2011 May 95/659 14% 7 10% $119,827
2011 April 34/234 15% 2 11% $93,165
2011 March 42/327 13% 1 9% $12,728
2011 February 67/439 15% 5 13% $40,838
2011 January 93/685 14% 5 10% $31,002
2010 December 123/1000 12% 12 9% $41,932
2010 November 46/407 11% 5 9% $10,606
2010 October 9/89 10% 1 10% $20,612
2010 September1/11 9% 0 0% $34
2010 August 1/12 8% 0 8% $99
2010 July 13/99 13% 1 9% $23,364
2010 June 19/116 16% 4 15% $72,805
2010 May 9/88 10% 0 8% $5,711
2010 April 15/160 9% 0 8% $13,440
2010 March 25/171 15% 3 12% $111,922
2010 February 1/11 9% 1 9% $205,571
cyrila...@gmail.com
vangel...@gmail.com
Its great to show higher level of tournaments, but we all know that we are more talking about mincash tournaments or cash games. Just to know i started to play just because i heard about this problems. 3 days i played i get 21 lost to 3 win when i was min 70% bettter..... can you explain that? I havent win no coinflip 5 to 0 and to be fair i win 1 situation when i had just 30%. Thats really weird.
Im know going throuh stats to see some algoritm in these.
Great day NV
diamondc...@gmail.com
how many times do you see flush cards and sucks outs
please this site enhances betting
do you really think its real?
please its a software and a software can be programmed to cheat
I hope pokerstar and other poker sites get caught and the only one;s that can stop them is
too many complaints
and the cops gets involved
figueiri...@gmail.com
> "Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message news:<ba8uf...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> > players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
> > drawing dead.
>
>
> >
> > (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
> > my own.)
>
>
>
> What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?
>
> Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
> they chosen and controlled?
>
> poker industry or financially related fields.
>
>
>
> you are also well known personally by many on RGP. I am not trying to
> undermine your work but I think it is important to know where it is
> coming from. This is not just your theory or strictly an opinion. It
> is a presentation of data and conclusions and as such could assume the
> status of fact.
>
> This is great stuff if not tainted either by sample size, statistical
> problems, or other bias. The crux of the question surrounding online
> poker site dealing/randomness integrity revolves around lack of
> accountability. When any audit is done factors in addition to the
> results assume equal importance. Integrity is important when
> examining integrity.
>
> I would simplly like to see the bar set higher for acceptance of
> results in terms of non-statistical bias. Lord knows if you posted
> something that appeared statistically biased you would hear about it
> here on RGP. Let's make the accountability requirements equally high.
> That is, at least as much as can be done in the anonymous world of
> newsgroup personalities and unregulated offshore online poker sites.
>
> RR
figueiri...@gmail.com
I play poker for the FIRST TIME in my entire life,in pokerstars,and after 3 minutes of game i had a POKER.My opponent gets a ROYAL STREET FLUSH with a card in the turn and another in the river.A matematician told me that the probalities of this are so low,that even playng for 3000 years,every day, 8 hours a day,that should never happen.Its fantastic how i get this in 3 minutes,playing poker for the firs time. It happened 15/december/2012 in the hand #9075992679 of pokerstars.
wixo...@gmail.com
-IL CHIP LEADER ALLO SHOW DOWN VINCE QUASI SEMPRE ANCHE CON CARTE RIDICOLE?
-PERCHE' CON DUE KK SERVITI AL FLOP ESCE QUASI SEMPRE L'ASSO?
-PERCHE' DUE ASSI SERVITI DIFFICILMENTE VINCONO?
-PERCHE' I BUONI CLIENTI DI POKERSTARS (QUELLI CON TANTE STELLINE) HANNO TANTISSIME MANI CON MOSTER CARD?
-PERCHE' QUANDO UN GIOCATORE E' CORTO GLI ARRIVANO SEMPRE BELLE CARTE PER FARE ALLIN E PUNTUALMENTE PERDE?
-PERCHE' NEI TORNEI CON GRANDI PREMI, AI PRIMI POSTI ARRIVANO GIOCATORI MAI
-SENTITI NE' MAI VISTI GIOCARE?
-PERCHE' ESCONO TANTISSIMI ASSI?
-PERCHE' AL RIVER ESCE SPESSISSIMO L'ASSO?
-PERCHE' SE VINCI UNA SERA POI PER SETTIMANE NON RIESCI A VINCERE NEANCHE CON SCALA REALE?
-PERCHE' SE TI AZZARDI A FARE UN PRELIEVO POI PER MESI NON RIESCI PIU' A VINCERE NEANCHE UN TORNEO PER BAMBINI?
-PERCHE' KA QA JA INCONTRA QUASI SEMPRE UNA COPPIA?
-PERCHE' QA INCONTRA QUASI SEMPRE KA?
IN CONCLUSIONE, CAPISCO CHE UN TORNEIO NON DEVE DURARE GIORNI.......MA NON CI FACESSERO CREDERE CHE SIA TUTTO CASUALE!!!!!!!!
PURTROPPO DANNO TROPPE CONDIZIONI AL SOFTWARE PER VELOCIZZARE I TORNEI E FAVORIRE CHI SANNO LORO...........
