a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking

Guruman · #1 01-10-2006, 08:24 PM

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]

kidcolin · #2 01-10-2006, 08:33 PM

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."

londomollari · #3 01-10-2006, 08:36 PM

[ 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 ]

jba · #4 01-10-2006, 08:37 PM

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.

Keepitsimple · #5 01-10-2006, 08:39 PM

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.

Jeoke · #6 01-10-2006, 08:51 PM

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

Guruman · #7 01-11-2006, 02:31 PM

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]

Buzz-cp · #8 01-11-2006, 03:42 PM

[ 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).

Guruman · #9 01-11-2006, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I believe winrate to be useless as a guidance tool of how one has been doing, it's just a poor predictor of how one will do. One's winrate is his record of success or failure at outplaying his opposition (weighted upward by growth and randomized to the degree that variance affects the game). Its not a measure of his total absolute poker skill.

I'm certainly not saying that the object of poker is not to maximise winrate. At the end of the day, we hope to be outplaying the oppposition at the highest stakes possible.

Just getting better at poker will help you find more and more worse opposition, but it won't put you in the game with them. You have to do that yourself. FWIW, I think getting better at poker naturally starts to equate with finding people that make the mistakes that you have learned to exploit, so thats a bit of semantics.

To me, winrate is a blurry record of a path traveled. I want to be able to look back and see that I've made good decisions, but the fact that I have done so in the past is no guarantee of my continued ability to do so in the future.

car ramrod · #10 01-11-2006, 04:27 PM

this reminds me of a post by bison a long while back.

Just b/c you play pp 3/6, doesn't mean you should not search through the 2/4 tables. There maybe a great 2/4 table going on, that could potentially be a more profitable situation then any of the 3/6 games.

Table selection is huge. But so is seat selection. Just b/c you find a good table, doesn't mean you are putting yourself in the best position. After finding a good table, you want to get a seat in a great spot at that table.

I think people like to label themselves 2/4 or 3/6 or 5/10 players (hell I do it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), but really you should be open to playing where ever the game looks profitable.