> I agree that the luck is probably better represented
this way for a
> single match length or a money game session. But the same argument
> could be made for the error rate, i.e. should your errors be measured
> in relation to the amount of match equity that you loose rather than
> the amount of EMG. The reason that it is done this way for error rates
> is obviously to be able to keep just on statistic independent of match
Not only: in fact you want to be able to compare mistakes
independently of the stake (cube value for money and match score
Hence the notion of normalization: - unnormalized equities/MWC : depends on the cube
value/match score - normalized equities/EMG : do not depend on the cube
value/match score (well this last is not really realy true, but ...)
Unnormalized equity and MWC tends both to emphasize
errors committed when the stakes were high (typically, high cube money
games and last games in matches). Of course, this is not really interesting
from a learning point of view, since something that would
cost you 0.1% in the first game of a match (and which would be considered
a no-error) could cost you 5% in a last one (a giant blunder).
In order to compare errors, in money games equities are normalized (i.e.
the cube value is considered 1) and in matches we use EMG.
> To me the error and luck are very similar, i.e.
> matter if you loose 0.2 point by bad luck or by making a major
> > That is the explanation, I believe, for the layout
being as it is. But
> I agree that the labels could be clearer, for example
> Total luck - ME (EMG) == Luck rate (total)
> Luck rate - ME (EMG) == Luck rate (per move)
> Total error - ME (EMG) == Error rate (total)
> Error rate - ME (EMG) == Error rate (per move)
> (where ME == ME or points. The term Luck rate(total) is certainly
> with these clearer labels I believe that we can interchange the the
> values as you and Ian wish.
This is much better. My only additional remarks would
- use the terms equity (E) and normalized equity (NE),
both make sense for both money and match and for both luck and error.
I know EMG is more or less standard, but using EMG in a money game is
somewhat ... ugly. For match, the equity is of course just the MWC%/100,
while the normalized equitity is the EMG.
- I would use E (NE) for luck, but NE (E) for error: (1) Total luck
- E (NE)
Luck rate - E (NE) Total error -
Error rate - NE (E) This because the thing the user would look at at the
end of a match or session would be: the normalized error (total or rate)
and the unnormalized luck (total most of the time). These values should
appear in the "main" column (i.e. not in brackets).
However, I do agree on your point: luck and error
are both apples and can be compared (normalized ones with normalized ones
and unnormalized ones with unnormalized ones). The above format (1) makes
the comparison less clear, hence the following one seems to me reasonable
too: (2) Total luck
- NE (E)
Luck rate - NE (E) Total error -
Error rate - NE (E) I still have a small preference for my (1) one, but
I won't complain if you decide the (2) one is better.