Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dmorris68, post: 1929873, member: 40397"] Yes I've seen this in-game, which is why I started the debate. And from what I'm being told it's being done across more than one tracker now. Glad to see I wasn't being a totally unreasonable idiot in this argument I started, LOL. My feelings were pretty much the same as all of you, but now I'm torn between what should be the correct *technical* definition of a stat and the widely accepted understanding of that stat. Even if it were technically incorrect, once it becomes "sacred" in the sense of a commonly held statistic, for one stat provider to just up and change it for sake of correctness can do more harm than good IMO. Okay, here's a teaser, if you want to chew on this and figure it out before reading further, stop reading after the hint below and see if you can figure a situation where it makes sense. Some of you sharper ones may get it with this little nudge. Hint: It has nothing to do with a walking scenario like the VPIP thing (or actually it is somewhat related, but the walk does not play into the PFR scenario). It has to do with "opportunity." ----- Okay, tl;dr and all that, but here's the background. If you weren't aware, the HM devs often releases internal (consider them "beta") updates for users to help test before they're rolled out to the auto-update server for HM2 to pick up. If you never visit their support forum to download these directly you wouldn't have them. There have been several of these internal updates released recently due to, among other things, stat fixes and enhancements which required a database update. Some of us were having issues with the db update freezing, so a couple days ago HM2 released another update (7126) to fix that. It also included a change in PFR calculation, which I ran into immediately after the update. After installing the update, I fired up my usual 6 tables of 6-max DONs on Lock and after awhile noticed a player with a 18/20 VPIP/PFR. A bit later I noticed my own stats on a couple tables had me at like 17/18 and 18/20. My first reaction was, this is a bug in the new update as I had never seen this before and it flew in the face of my understanding of PFR. Over the years I've used PT2, PT3, HM1, HM2, and PT4 and before those I used the Indicator series of tools, and have *never* seen PFR > VPIP. So I [URL="http://forums.holdemmanager.com/bug-reports/270732-7126-some-stats-not-correct.html#post1307232"]posted on the HM2 support forum[/URL] in a thread started by someone else reporting other incorrect stats after the update (some stats at like 200% LOL). It turned out to be a thread hijack unrelated to the OP but I had assumed they were related stat bugs in the new update. Come to find out, the PFR issue was due to an [B]intentional change in how PFR is calculated[/B] to make it more "accurate." As you can imagine, being the mouthy and opinionated SOB I am, I let fly with my concerns. :) You can read it all from the post linked to above, but my main issue is, right or wrong, I thought most everyone's understanding of PFR would coincide with mine, i.e. PFR is a subset of VPIP and can never exceed it. IMO, by someone considered an "authoritative" source of stats to just suddenly decide to change it, much confusion and inconsistency would ensue. But not only was I given a scenario that explains why they think it's more correct this way, I'm also being told that PT4 is also making this change and that this same argument happened on their forum. I haven't been over there yet to confirm, and I haven't run PT4 in awhile so apparently hadn't got that update yet. You can read HM's justification there in that thread, but basically the argument is that if you're facing a preflop all-in from a larger stack, you do not have the opportunity to PFR (you can only call or fold, not raise), and without the opportunity it should not be counted in the equation. This is where it's similar to the VPIP issue in that other thread I created. Thus, your PFR opportunities could be smaller than your VPIP opportunities which could make your PFR exceed VPIP. In one example they gave, if you played 3 hands of 32 and PFR'ed them all, your VPIP = 3/32, but if you only had the opportunity to PFR in 30 hands (because twice you faced aipf's from a bigger stack) then PFR = 3/30. Thus a VPIP/PFR of 9/10. Once they explained that and then told me that PT4 was moving in this same direction, I became more at ease with it. And again, as we said in the VPIP discussion, this is really only visible over a small sample size, like maybe over a session or two. With a substantial sample size you should never notice it because over all PFR will trail VPIP (unless maybe all you play is super turbos). But I still have some heartburn about pulling the rug out from under a "sacred" stat like that, just as I did with their take on VPIP that was counter to PT3 at the time. BTW I'm told that PT4 also changed their VPIP stat accordingly, so maybe it's a good thing overall. As long as everyone is on the same page. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us