Spinoff of this Thread

Ok as to the Equity EV thing... yeah It got a little more confusing than I thought. I ended up making a Excel spreadsheet to do this for me. It works great, and I'll attach a copy of it so that you guys can try using it in the future.

Heres how my chart looks (Dammit kid, be nice if people with x posts could post HTML , the chart would look so much better)



Bottom line is, I had 83.2% equity on the turn based on my guesstimate at her holding.

Warning Confusing math content to follow:

You take the % of what he holding, times the number of combinations possible. That gives you what I call Occuring combinations. You figure out what percent of OcComb of the total OcComb each hand represents to get your %Occ. You multiply the %Occ times the equity for that hand (your equity) for each hand. Then you Add up those results to get your overall Equity.

There... any questions?

Attached Files

HANDEVALUATOR.xls (15.5 KB, 38 views)

__________________

Uuhhhh, okay???

__________________
Nimvin
"I bet how much?!"

OK this was supposed ot be in this Thread

__________________

I know you guys read it.... I know some of you have played with it... I want to hear some comments.....

__________________

OK, I'll bite. Its good stuff, but I have a question/comment.
% occurance: so this is set arbitrarily by your intuition as to what he might have. E.g. based on how he played his hand to a point, you think he has AK 35%, JJ 10% etc... Am I wrong, or are these just intuitive %s that you assign to various hands?
Comb: this is the mathamatical number of combinations possible for the hand. PP have fewer possible combinations then 2 diff't ranks.
% Occ: so now you have adjusted the likely occurances from your intuition to a factor of intuition and possible combinations.
That's the problem I have... is it necessary and why? Doesnt' your intuition already factor in that there are more AK varieties than JJ, hence 35% vs 10%? I would appreciate some reasoning behind your methods, since I like to calculate out equities in a similar way, but I always ignore combinations (at least directly). I hope this makes since.

Right.
correct. As In this case, since Half the Q's are in play already, there are Half as many AQ's as there are AK's.

Thats the whole point of this thing is to be able to get from intuition to a concrete number. It results in a weighted equity at the end. Yeah you can plug into POkerStove AA,KK,AK,AQ,JJ,TT and come up with an enweighted equity. But that doesn't take into account Your intuition of what he could likely be holding, and the likely occurance of each. I believe HOHv2 calls this a Structured Hand Analysis. I have done these by hand in the past, usually with only 1 or 2 possible hands, but as deep as this one went, I felt an excel chart would expidite the issue.

I have made a couple cosmetic changes to it. But you can use it for as many ahnd combinations as you wish.

__________________

OK, I get it. I just feel you're overcompensating with hand combinations. Also, what happens if you analyze a hand where a possibility is Ax. Now you have exponential growth of Occ% for Ax and pps are going to have little impact at all on final Equity.

Completely unnesecary but sorta fun

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

Don't see it as uneccesary. There are just select situations where it becomes Applicable. I do hand analysis like this at least once a week, don't you bonch?

As for Ax. Lets say you think there is a 40% chance that they are playing Ax (2-9). Well then Each Ax gets 5% of the total probability (changed from the first % occ). Each Ax will have a different absolute Equity, and there will different combinations for each probably, so your weighted equities for each will differ.

I admit, its a semi-simple tool for a not so simple problem.

__________________

I understand how it works Marm, but no I don't do hand analysis like this. I just play a ridiculous amount of hours :O

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann