Post Your Winrates At PLO8

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there something I can assist you with?

[Shabamabam]

Total altogether is now -6.03PTB/100 over 12k hands from PL$50 to PL$5000.

I AM THE KING OF PLO8.

(seriously, if you see me at PLO8 from now on, just tell me to give you half of my stack and leave and i'll be better off)

[Habib Marwan]

phil, how/why are you using an sd of 50 bb/100?

[Phil153]

I think that's typical. Nits can be lower, LAGs higher (I'm 105PTBB/100), but 50's pretty average for PLO8 I believe. The number is on the session notes tab > more detail popup in PokerTracker.

[davebreal]

[ QUOTE ]
(seriously, if you see me at PLO8 from now on, just tell me to give you half of my stack and leave and i'll be better off)

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually started to feel bad for you last night.

[Gone Forever]

[ QUOTE ]
2.66bb/100 over 195,452 total hands.. yep, sucks.

don't ask for breakdowns either!

[/ QUOTE ]

Awww. MC Hammer would break it down...

[Mendacious]

I got walked through the math of confidence intervals by Mute once, so I understand what you are saying Phil, and in a certain sense saying 50k+ is arbitrary.

2 comments: 1) My experience tells me that a player can have completely anomolous results for well over 20k hands. And to normalize one of these periods requires at least another 20k hands-- probably more; and 2) relatively low stakes results mean relatively little as far as "winrate" is concerned when there is (better) competition at available higher stakes games. In other words, beating the $.5 game doesn't really tell you much in a global sense about your longterm prospects for a winrate.

My "historic" winrate at $.50 games over 24k hands is > 15 PTbb/100s. But, IMHO this does not say a whole lot. I am sceptical that ANYONE can sustain much better than 6-7 PTBB/100s at any game over $100 in today's current climate at Fulltilt and Pokerstars.

[Phil153]

The point is, Mendacious, that a 12BB/100 winrate over 10K hands is more meaningful than a 5BB/100 winrate over 50K hands, in terms of deciding if you're a winning player.

There is absolutely no arbitary cutoff at which things become meaningful. Not even a ballpark range. Just math.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Fiasco]

15 PTBB/100 over 30k hands from $25-$500. Most of this before everything got Fristed.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, Mendacious, that a 12BB/100 winrate over 10K hands is more meaningful than a 5BB/100 winrate over 50K hands, in terms of deciding if you're a winning player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure I agree with this.

Here's why:

I think for this math to be accurate it requires SOME assumption about distribution of cards dealt/situations that are occurring-- especially in a PL/NL game where you can easily have hands with 100bb swings.

The math behind confidence intervals and standard deviations in cards is tremendously incomplete and inadequate as applied to NL and PL games and the almost infinite possible variations of how cards can be distributed between players and on the board.

It also does not take into account how many hands of 10k or 50k actually are significant.

As an example I offer the following of how far off this reasoning can be even assuming a completely even distribution.

Two individuals and a robot are tested to measure psychic ability. One indivicual has no psychic ability whatsoever, the other individual can predict accurately 54% of the time. The robot picks Heads everytime.

All three predict 10000 coin tosses, and the psychic predicts 5400 correctly and both the non-psychic and the robot predict 5000 +/- 50 correctly. You can probably measure with a pretty high rate of confidence that the psychic has a statistically significant edge. Let's assume, however that every 1000 tosses, one toss is weighted as equivilant of 200. (which is about the equivilant swing of getting stacked). Of those 10 tosses, 7 come out heads, and the psychic misses 6, the non-psychic gets 6 correct. What does this do to the confidence levels? Now it is necessary to toss the coin many more times to start to get meaningful information. And this assumes the type of normal distribution that you get flipping coins-- which is not remotely the same as the complex distributions you get playing poker.



My point is that over a run of 10,000 hands does not necessarily include much more than 100 truly significant hands. The nature of the distribution of luck in terms of both board and opponent cards is such that 100 significant hands doesn't tell you a whole lot.

MY POINT: When you have weighting, and you don't even take into account the number of hands it takes to get an even distribution of luck, the math is not necessarily that much more precise than experience in arriving at how many hands it takes to determine someone's win rate with a high degree of confidence.

Feel free to set me straight about this. It is always enlightening.