Adjusted ROI

[jynxy]

I'm having a hard time understanding this in certain spots.

This is my bustout hand of a $7 6max hyper turbo


PokerStars - $6.71+$0.29|15/30 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

KillBillTill (BTN): 1,032.00
talasam1 (SB): 500.00
JD Klinkz (BB): 458.00
GondiCity (UTG): 10.00
Ramonnie (MP): 500.00
Linx8787 (CO): 500.00

KillBillTill posts ante 3.00, talasam1 posts ante 3.00, JD Klinkz posts ante 3.00, GondiCity posts ante 3.00, Ramonnie posts ante 3.00, Linx8787 posts ante 3.00, talasam1 posts SB 15.00, JD Klinkz posts BB 30.00

Pre Flop: (pot: 63.00) JD Klinkz has J A

GondiCity calls 7.00 and is all-in, fold, Linx8787 calls 30.00, KillBillTill calls 30.00, fold, JD Klinkz raises to 455.00 and is all-in, fold, KillBillTill calls 425.00

Flop: (980.00, 3 players) 4 9 T

Turn: (980.00, 3 players) 2

River: (980.00, 3 players) 3


So from my understanding i would have an all-in equity of 41%, yet in PT4 it has it as 0. Now i know that you discount certain hands for when someone folds after an all-in but i don't see how this would apply to this spot.
I am lead to believe that all-in equity is the average equity AFTER everyone has gone all in. Seeing as how there are 3 players all-in here why would a limper folding effect our outcome?
Granted we do not know what cards he has folded etc etc but surely that matters in no way as he has folded out his cards so it has no bearing on the outcome of the hand :s

Now due to this the adjusted net winnings of this tourney is recorded as -$7 instead of it being different as i went all-in on one hand that i had 41% equity on a 33bb pot. I'm finding it hard to understand why you believe that this method leads to less skewed results when it records the equity in this manner?

[WhiteRider]

The problem is that (as you say) one of the players who calls the first all-in later folds, so we don't know their cards.

[jynxy]

The problem is that (as you say) one of the players who calls the first all-in later folds, so we don't know their cards.

I understand that you omit this because of that but i do not understand why this player folding this hand effects our equity AFTER the money has gone in?

I could understand if we went all-in an two guys had us covered and then on a later street someone folded out. But this limper didn't call our all-in so 100% of the time he is folding in this scenario. If he had called then 100% in that scenario he is calling. This method would omit any squeeze situations from the results and squeezing is a highly profitable play.

I think that i'm just struggling to understand why it matters that he has folded? As far as i can make it the only relevant info is that he did fold and thus has no bearing on our equity. If we are worried about not knowing the cards he has folded then why are we not concerned with sb or bb that will also commit chips the the pot with hands that we don't know?

[kraada]

The simplest explanation goes something like this:

He called the first all-in and therefore had equity in that particular pot, and his cards gave him some percentage of actually in fact winning the hand. Since he then later folded and surrendered that equity we don't know how to distribute the original equity for adjustment purposes.

It's a little clearer if you imagine that everyone had seen a flop after limping, then there was more betting - the player who folded had a chance to make a good hand but we don't know what it was, so we don't adjust equity at all in these cases.

[jynxy]

So then why do we not have an equity output for the other side pot? Because he folds and then there is a big side pot with me and the caller + the main pot. So why don't i have an equity calc? At the point of going all-in on the side pot there was just em and caller in it.

[kraada]

The way the system works is that we either calculate everything or we don't, though I agree I don't see a philosophical reason why this particular side pot could not be calculated.

[jynxy]

Fair enough. Do you not think that this type of exclusion would taint what is touted as a more accurate depiction on ev/all-in equity/adjusted roi?

Whilst i understand your reasoning for the exclusion of hands when someone folds out. Surely it would prove to be better to devise a method of bringing in such situations as my own? I mean it actually brings in a huge systematic error to the stat as i stated before because my net adjusted should not be -$7 but something better than this.

I can't help but think that whilst you have improved upon a bad stat (ev roi etc) you seem to have introduced another source of error.

[jynxy]

PokerStars - $6.71+$0.29|30/60 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 4 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

israel275 (BB): 1,487.00
RAIPE77 (UTG): 34.00
Lavandik (BTN): 1,310.00
JD Klinkz (SB): 169.00

israel275 posts ante 6.00, RAIPE77 posts ante 6.00, Lavandik posts ante 6.00, JD Klinkz posts ante 6.00, JD Klinkz posts SB 30.00, israel275 posts BB 60.00

Pre Flop: (pot: 114.00) JD Klinkz has K Q

RAIPE77 calls 28.00 and is all-in, Lavandik calls 60.00, JD Klinkz raises to 163.00 and is all-in, fold, Lavandik calls 103.00

Flop: (438.00, 3 players) 7 J T

Turn: (438.00, 3 players) Q

River: (438.00, 3 players) 2


Here is a hand also where i'm wondering why it has been excluded

[kraada]

Since UTG is all-in for less than the big blind, the big blind is effectively considered as having called into that side pot I believe.

[jynxy]

hmm do you not feel like this isn't good?

Stuff like this happens an awful lot in hypers