I want my Sklansky bucks...

Play more hands? Is there a program that gives the odds in deviation terms over a given number of hands? For example, can I find out how often pocket aces loses to kings over a sample set of only 2 hands or 10 hands? I'm sure there should be some mathematical way to find out what the standard deviation is.

light65536 said:

Play more hands? Is there a program that gives the odds in deviation terms over a given number of hands? For example, can I find out how often pocket aces loses to kings over a sample set of only 2 hands or 10 hands? I'm sure there should be some mathematical way to find out what the standard deviation is.

Click to expand...

Is this what you're asking? I have less than 1% probability to run this bad over 27k hands.

This is my graph. Does this take into account rake? Does that mean I should have a lot more money based on my odds? Also what I don't understand is when I go to the showdown vs sSklansky it shows my showdown winnings a lot more then they should be.

I'll look into this but looks like its saying I've been winning all along.

light65536 said:

This is my graph. Does this take into account rake? Does that mean I should have a lot more money based on my odds?

Click to expand...

No, you're about average lucky. Luck is the difference between the red and blue lines. Blue higher than red, you're luckier than average. Blue lower than red, you're in bad luck.

My graph says i'm about down $400 due to bad luck alone over the last 4 days. Yours says you're about $4 from the EV, which is perfectly reasonable.

I had a god awful downswing similar to this around July 10th. Since then i've been very discouraged and this has caused me to play MUCH less hands. I'm happy to say that i just ran 40BB/100 in ~700 hand session though, so maybe i'm starting to come out of it.

I have been spending some time reading/watching vids... but mostly playing the low limit MTT's at Stars. I've been taking a small break from FT, but i believe i may return once i move into my new place at the end of the week.

I wanna know where I can spend all these sklansky bucks! I'm a freakin' sklansky $ millionaire!

But why is my green line so much lower then my blue and red lines ? That is the rake? It says I'm winning about 8 BB per 100 but I'm not seeing that in my account. I was actually less then $1 from my goal yesterday but ran into some bad luck and tilted a bit off too and now Im back to $80 which really sucks. I think it says something like $100 in rake I've payed in. That is just so wrong and ridiculous.. I'm winning and not even got anything to show for it.

You're folding too many hands before showdown, you're peeling too many flops with weak hands, you're not bluffing enough, you're not aggressive enough postflop, you're not value-betting thin enough. Generally if your showdown winnings are high, but your non-showdown winnings are losing significant money, then you've got those problems with your game.

c9h13no3 said:

You're folding too many hands before showdown, you're peeling too many flops with weak hands, you're not bluffing enough, you're not aggressive enough postflop, you're not value-betting thin enough. Generally if your showdown winnings are high, but your non-showdown winnings are losing significant money, then you've got those problems with your game.

Click to expand...

you're answering to light, right? not to me? Cos I'm about break even in non showdown winnings, which i believe is decent.

BelgoSuisse said:

you're answering to light, right? not to me? Cos I'm about break even in non showdown winnings, which i believe is decent.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that comment was directed @ light.

Being break even in NSD winnings is pretty good. In light's case, he's losing as much without going to showdown as he wins when he does go to showdown.

No it doesnt say anything about showdown vs nonshowdown on that graph. It is talking about sklansky bucks VERSUS profit. I'll look up and read on it but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Both my non showdown and showdown shows +EV.

light65536 said:

No it doesnt say anything about showdown vs nonshowdown on that graph. It is talking about sklansky bucks VERSUS profit. I'll look up and read on it but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Both my non showdown and showdown shows +EV.

Click to expand...

In that graph, your showdown winnings are about 45$. Your total winnings are about 0$. So that makes your non-showdown winnings...... roughly -45$?

i've been running awful as of late as well. Quite literally, there was a point where i had 8 all in pots in a row (50NL so ~$100 each) where i went in with my money ahead in 6, but only won 2. 4 of these were losing to 2 outers and 1 was a 3 outer. i had aa vs jj all in on the flop and villain turned a set, kk vs qq all in on the flop anmd villain rivered a set, flopped set vs 2 pair which rivered a higher boat, a set vs trips rivering a higher boat (almost lost my mind after this one) and AT flopping 2 pair vs AK hitting a higher 2 pair after all in.

Over this period, i was running with a W$WSF of 49 and a W$SD of 57%. So it wasn't like i was losing every pot i entered at all. Far from it. But every single time i pressed the all in button all hell broke loose. grinding out $50 to lose it in 2 seconds is a lesson in frustration. finally had a good day today.

whining aside, i don't think you can use sklansky bucks to say your *down* something. after all, alot of running good/bad is whether you are on the good or bad side of coolers, not just whether your all in pots hold up or not.

feitr said:

whining aside, i don't think you can use sklansky bucks to say your *down* something. after all, alot of running good/bad is whether you are on the good or bad side of coolers, not just whether your all in pots hold up or not.

Click to expand...

sklansky bucks is not just about all ins. it computes EV of your bets on each street for all hands for which there was a showdown.

But yes, it does not include coolers.

No, I don't think your right about my non-showdown winnings being -$45. I don't know what the graph means because I dont have a key but I think -- pretty much for sure that you are wrong.

I think it means I've payed in $45 or more into rake.

you cant unfortunatley. all you can do is play through it. it did that to me for 6 months. granted some of it was tilt on my part but a lot of my winners were trumped on the river for the majority of the 6 months. gl and play on just remain playing your normal game and it will stop.

light65536 said:

No, I don't think your right about my non-showdown winnings being -$45. I don't know what the graph means because I dont have a key but I think -- pretty much for sure that you are wrong.

I think it means I've payed in $45 or more into rake.

Click to expand...

No, c9h13no3 is perfectly right in his interpretation of your graph, and rake has nothing to do with it.

light65536 said:

No, I don't think your right about my non-showdown winnings being -$45. I don't know what the graph means because I dont have a key but I think -- pretty much for sure that you are wrong.

I think it means I've payed in $45 or more into rake.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with rake.
Green = Total Winnings. Blue = Showdown Winnings. Non-showdown winnings = Green minus Blue

Chris_TC said:

It has nothing to do with rake.
Green = Total Winnings. Blue = Showdown Winnings. Non-showdown winnings = Green minus Blue

Click to expand...

And here I thought Green - Blue = Yellow

BelgoSuisse said:

sklansky bucks is not just about all ins. it computes EV of your bets on each street for all hands for which there was a showdown.

But yes, it does not include coolers.

Click to expand...

I think Sklansky bucks are flawed though, mainly because the outcome of the board sometimes is what causes the hand to go to showdown or not.

Basically let's say villain has a draw, you bet turn, he calls, whether his call is correct or not is irrelevant. Now if the river blanks he loses but if the river hits he commits more money to the hand. Now according to Sklansky bucks, in this situation your villain will hit 100% of the time, thus making you unlucky (even if they were a favorite in the situation when they called, they got more than their equity). But when they miss, they fold and it doesn't count you as lucky. Obviously it happens the other way as well, but since in general most people here will have opponents calling bets without implied odds more than they will be doing so themselves, I predict that all good players should have more Sklansky bucks than real dollars in the long run, simply because of this one flaw. All-in ev however is independent of this because once a hand is all-in, you see both hands every time and the same amount of cards will be seen every time.

Example:

Hero has AKd, villain has 35h.

Hero raise to 4 big blinds, villain calls - 8 big blind pot, 5 are heros, 3 villain's.

Flop comes AhKc3s rainbow

Hero bets 6 big blinds, villain calls - 12 went into the pot here, 10 belong to hero, 2 to villain.

Turn comes Jh

Pot = 20, hero bets 15, villain calls - 30 goes into the pot, 23 belong to hero, 17 to villain

Now we deviate. Three possibilities:

River comes blank, hero bets any amount, villain folds.

River comes heart, hero checks, villain bets 25 big blinds, hero calls. All 50 here belong to villain.

River comes 3, however it happens, hero loses all his money.

44 cards left, 2 outs give #3, 9 bring #2, other 33 bring #1.

So technical real money for last scenario would be -(2/44)*50 - (9/33)*25 = hero loses 9 big blinds.

Overall Sklansky bucks for hero assuming we see hands every time: 5+10+23 - (4+6+15) - 9 = 4. This is profitable for hero.

But since it doesn't always go to showdown, Sklansky bucks when it goes to showdown: 5+10+23 - (4+6+15) -(2/11)*50 - (9/11)*25 = -16.5

Money lost when it goes to showdown: (2/11)*100 + (9/11)*50 = 59.

So over the long run, making what is a good play with positive sklansky bucks were all the cards showing, yields a result such that over the long run (meaning luck is 0) your Sklansky bucks will be -42.5 big blinds (yes almost half a buy-in) per time this happens. That's a pretty big effect, and all because it neglects to realize that oftentimes whether a flush or straight hits depends on whether the draw hits. So this means that using the Sklansky bucks method, practically every time a hand of this type reaches showdown, the draw will have hit, and it will look like those drawing (even unprofitably) are hitting their draw every single time.

That's a good point, Zach.

In the other hand, in my case, it's really the all-in luck that accounts for most of the difference between sklansky bucks and showdown winnings.

You suck at coinflips.