[emerson]

In the previous short thread I commented that I thought it was unusual that I had higher win rates at the hijack and cutoff than on the button. It was speculated by some, including Stox, that this could be due to small sample size. Nobody gave me any figures for comparison by I didn't think of checking in Stox's book itself.

On page 14 he gives the win rates for the high stakes play in terms of BB/hand for each position.

Button=.35
One off =.39
Two off=.47
Three off=.57

I am glad to see that my results are not unusual compared to others, but just unusual looking. I don't understand this phenomenon of increased win rate as the position becomes less favorable.

In addition to the high stakes figures, he gives the figures for two different mid-stakes players. For the first we see the same pattern:

Button=.32
One off=.37
Two off=.42
Three off=.46

For the second mid-stakes player there is no pattern. Button has the highest win rate but the hijack is higher than the cutoff.

I should add that the last group, the one that did not show the same pattern, had an average of 8.8 players. The first two samples averaged between 5 and 6 players per hand dealt.

Additionally, I suspect that he put BB/hand in error and that it must be BB/100. The second player, for example, only averaged +.04 BB/100 overall, which would hardly be possible if he were winning this much per hand in positions other than the blinds. For example, in a six player game, if he lost 100% of $ rqr to post in the blinds, he would make .82 BB per orbit.