Nasher wrote:
Did they leave the HS * Npot on there? In the paper originally describing EHS they mentioned leaving off the negative potential.
That's right, the EHS calculation in the paper didn't used the HS * Npot, but the count of winning/tied/losing/ hands in my results are the same as in the paper, just like the HS, Ppot and Npot.
I used the EHS with negativ potential, because indiana used it for his results as well, so I can compare the results properly.
Below you find my results for AhJd-JcJhAs
Code:
5Cards-----------7Cards--------------------
--------------Ahead-----Tied---Behind---Total
Ahead---------1056466---0------10754----1067220
Tied----------0---------1980---0--------1980
Behind--------44--------0------946------990
HS: 0.9981498612395929
Ppot: 0.022222222222222223
Npot:0.010067308862489585
EHS: 0.9881422924901185
Another drastic example is AsAh-AdAcKh:
Code:
5Cards-----------7Cards--------------------
--------------Ahead-----Tied---Behind---Total
Ahead---------1070178---0------12-------1070190
Tied----------0---------0------0--------0
Behind--------0---------0------0--------0
HS: 1.0
Ppot: 0.0
Npot:1.1212962184285033E-5
EHS: 0.9999887870378157
I don't have indianas results for this combination, but the results seems to be correct, since there are only 12 combinations (straight flush) to lose vs. with this hand. Can someone verify those numbers?Statistics: Posted by sAToRu — Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:45 pm
]]>