|
Originally Posted by Schuppen
Hello,
Love this answer MadMojoMonkey . I like this approach of how to deal with your winrate a lot.
Hello. Thanks.
Ultimately, my approach to winrate is to look at it after the fact and say, "yep, that's my winrate." It's going to vary so much over a sample of less than thousands of hands that it's simply not a strong indicator of my play.
Originally Posted by Schuppen
Anyway I would like to know more about it.. Can you maybe give me another example of those variable winrates ,
let's say 100 000 h and a winrate of 0 BB/100 with a confidence of 50 , 66 and 75 percent?
When we're talking statistics about statistics (not a typo), we need to be very clear about what question we're asking. I'm not sure what you're after, here.
If you say the winrate is 0 bb/100, then I expect it to be 0 bb/100 after any number of hands. This means that no matter how wiggly the line of your winrate in a graph of winnings vs. hands, it is mostly flat.
If your "true" winrate is 0 bb/100, and you want to know what the expected value of your bankroll will be after 100,000 hands, at various confidence intervals, then:
@50% CI -> 0 +/- 1,908 bb
@66% CI -> 0 +/- 2,699 bb
@75% CI -> 0 +/- 3,254 bb
Notice that the expected value is always the "true" value - in this case 0 bb. Notice that as your confidence goes up, the spread in the value goes up. If you want an precise answer (with small +/-), then you get a very low confidence interval. If you want high confidence, then you get a very wide answer (with large +/-).
Originally Posted by Schuppen
Also is it possible to make such assumptions with the EV line (i mean the yellow line in PT4 so not the effective green winrate line).
Thankx
Yep, the math is not specific to the cause of the input. It's just taking the data points and quantifying the spread in them. Assuming randomness means what we assume it means and we don't dig too deep into that (lalalalala, random is random, cause my brain accepts it w/o question, lalalalala) - ahem - assuming that, then it doesn't matter whether it's dice or cards or people making choices or whatever.
We're just quantifying our lack of understanding and making predictions which stand up to a formal mathematical description. This formal description, thankfully, describes many observable phenomena and has proven to be quite robust at stating its limitations explicitly.
|