a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

I was recently perusing the psychology forum and watching the discussion on what percentage of us 2+2rs are winning players.

A thought occurred to me. [I know, this is rare] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What information do we really gain from analyzing our winrate? What does a 1.5 bb/hand rate at the party 2/4 tables over 90k hands really tell us?

Here's what I think based on the discussion referenced:

-winrate is not an absolute measurement of how good of a poker player one is, it is a relative one.-

It seems abundantly clear that if I sit down at table A with David Sklansky, StellarWind, Tstone, Ed Miller, Daniel Negranu, and Mimi Tran to play some 2/4 limit holdem, I'm going to get my clock cleaned. If I move to table B and sit down with the usual fish on Stars, I'll do much better.

My absolute poker skill hasn't changed since I haven't forgotten or learned anything new when I switch tables. My relative skill level has though, as my opposition will be much more prone to making incorrect folds and raises.

The more hands I play at table A, the more my winrate suffers. The more hands I play at table B, the more my winrate benefits.

-since winrate is not an absolute measurement, it is probably only a historical record-

Assume I sit down at table A and immediately assume a true long term winrate of -3bb/100 vs these specific opponents. Overmatched, I get up and move to table B, where my true long term winrate jumps to 2bb/100. Of course, I am initially unaware of the actual numerical value, but the reality of the shift remains and is in fact instantaneous.

If, over the course of my poker career I only have the options of sitting in at table A and table B, my winrate will end up being very directly tied to the proportional time that I spend on each table.

If over the course of my poker career, I chose to sit in at table A to learn some new skills, my winrate will slowly move from -3bb to -2bb. At the same time, my winrate at table B will creep from 2bb up to 3bb. Unlike the instantaneous shift that occurs when I switch tables, this slower creep upwards only occurrs over thousands of hands as I develop better methods and skills.

when my career is over, my actual winrate in the good ol pokertracker database will be a proportional representation of the time that I spent at each table, weighted upward by the amount of relative skill that I acquired over time.

In effect - it mainly tells me what table I was at, and it implies a little about how much I learned. If I go and sit in at table A, I'll still be a loser. If I go and sit at table B, I'll still be a winner. The stakes don't matter.

-given that I have a limited bankroll and can chooose my stakes and tables, what conclusions should I draw from this?-

well, the worst of all possible worlds would be for me to play above my bankroll at table A for any period of time. I would run a high risk of ruin, which negates any poker knowledge I may gain.

the best of all possible worlds would be to play at the highest stakes my bankroll will allow at table B, moving up in stakes once my br crosses certain thresholds, and moving down if I cross others. Over the course of my career, my winrate would stay about the same, but my bankroll would grow to ginormous proportions.

-how does this relate to reality?-

I don't obsess over winrate because I don't believe it to be the measure of a poker player's poker skills. I believe it to be a record of his table and seat selection skills (and relative ability). As long as I can find tables where I am confident that I am not being outplayed, I'll go to the highest stakes my roll can afford. If there are no good tables, its time to take a look at some other sites and other stakes.

Maybe someday you'll see me sitting in with the fishies at the 100/200 tables. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] table and seat selection. I'm thoroughly convinced it's the only reason I make money at poker, given the amount of times I say to myself "well that was a stupid play."

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] table and seat selection. I'm thoroughly convinced it's the only reason I make money at poker, given the amount of times I say to myself "well that was a stupid play."

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

table selection is #1. I didn't use to believe this, and now I firmly do.

it is now my #1 concern, and has been for the last 50k hands or so.

I am always bewildered when I fire up a table on a fishy site and see 6 TAGs doing a circlejerk.

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

Its definately key. Without rake I would gladly battle the TAGs since its quite fun and I am cocky enough to believe I have an edge. However with 2BB/100 rake it wont work.

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

I use to think about this concept and get mad, I really didnt like trying to find a good table.
Now I do it of course and its really not so bad

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

I just always find it interesting when people post graphs and stats and such. people assume that they are winners or losers or tilting or running hot or running cold.

the PT stats and graphs are only a record of your skill level as it relates to your competition, weighted upwards as you learn, and randomized to an extent as it relates to luck.

No one is a winner at 2/4. Some people just have been winners against the competition that they chose at 2/4.

When looked at in this light, I'll bet that winrate converges a little more quickly. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

This is one of the best posts I have read in a long time. I learned table selection here recently and have learned its true importance. Before I would think of a table in terms of winning and losing. If I was up, I would stay even if the conditions were horrible because "this is a good table." On the other hand, I would leave a juicy table because I had experienced a couple of bad beats and was down, therefore "a bad table." Once I learned what to look for, my win rate really improved.

The one question I have, I learned in a full ring table to look at the 3 players to my right, and if they weren't over 30 VPIP, I should leave (not a hard and fast rule, but a good general way to check the table conditions). Is there a similar standard that can be applied to 6-max, or is it basically looking for bad players, regardless of position at the table?

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

I'm pretty sure most people who say "I'm beating the 5/10 on Party for 2BB/100" pretty much understand all these concepts, that's just the easiest way to explain how they've been doing. There's a generally accepted "average" ability of players that gather at 1 limit at any given site. However all tables are different, and good table selection will boost the winrate a bit. It would be quite the dreamworld if we could play with fish at 50/100 and grind it out vs. TAGs at 1/2. Unfortunately things work quite the opposite on average. I'm pretty sure you're right, that if you were to play the same group of opponents day in and day out winrates would converge more quickly. However when constantly varying table conditions also become a factor affecting winrate, then I suppose it makes things a little murkier. In that case it would basically never converge, becuase your "true winrate" is different at every table, and every table is different.

Re: a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking
 

[ QUOTE ]
-winrate is not an absolute measurement of how good of a poker player one is, it is a relative one.-

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
-since winrate is not an absolute measurement, it is probably only a historical record-

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't obsess over winrate because I don't believe it to be the measure of a poker player's poker skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guru,

This is a good post pontificating winrate, however I have some questions. Please don't get me wrong, and my response comes with utmost respect. I think you have some contradictions. Although it is true that winrate is a relative measurement, it isn't entirely useless as a measurement tool altogether. In one case, you note that at a certain table we have +winrate, and -winrate at another, and then you say that it's not useful. For what is our purpose of playing poker than to win? Indeed when the winrates converge to infinity and beyond, we would prefer the table that maximizes (winrate x limit). I know by now not to obsess over a few bad sessions or a 3K bad run, but winrate is what it's all about (and only achieved by good playing of course).