NO MORE STATS POSTS

[___]

[hemstock]

you suck

[___]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[Peter Harris]

I agree, to an extent, with ___.

from the posting Guidelines:

[ QUOTE ]
Pokertracker Stat Posts

-Identify your post with Stats in the subject line.

-Posts without a significant number of hands will lead to few replies and unhelpful and possibly misleading advice. Consider waiting until you have 30k or more hands in your database.

-Some good information can be found in this thread (be sure to check out all the posts for some additional links.)

stats info

[/ QUOTE ]

We are seeing too many 10, 15, 20k posts, too often. If it says consider sticking to 30k, maybe this should be enforced.

Most experienced posters will know that in 20k hands a lot can change. If these people had read the "stats post" link they will know if they are stealing too little, going to SD too much, etc. etc. and we wouldn't need to waste space and time dealing with it.

So yeah, not "no more" stats posts, but please, fewer and a larger sample.

[numeri]

I don't have a problem with posters asking about stats, but they clutter up the forum a bit. I think Wookie's thread that we used to have in Micros was nice to keep them all in the same thread.

[Buzz-cp]

stat thread +30K strong recommendation sounds goot.

[MrWookie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with posters asking about stats, but they clutter up the forum a bit. I think Wookie's thread that we used to have in Micros was nice to keep them all in the same thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one?

I agree with the sentiment that there are too many stats posts, especially those with sub-30k or even sub-50k sample sizes. It's not that people can't learn something from a stats examination at 10k hands. With that many hands, you'll have a good view of your VPIP, PFR, stealing and defense frequencies, aggression factors, etc. They're important. However, normal ranges for these stats have already been well documented, either in my post above or the one from the forum FAQ here posted earlier. Anyone before posting stats should be considerate enough to everyone here so as to have taken the time to read the readily available sources of the basic information. As for the stats I didn't bother discussing in my FAQ, they really take a much longer time to converge, or else they don't really say anything particularly relevant about your play. For example, the fact that you're check/raising less often than most players doesn't mean you should just start doing it more because's fun and what all the cool kids are doing. It means that you should consider your postflop play more, which you should be doing anyway by reading hand posts, and posting your own.

For a while in Micro, we had a "Designated Stats Post," where everyone was encouraged to dump their stat screen shots, rather than starting new threads. This kept a max of one stats post on the front page at a time, and it compiled a whole host of stats and stats commentary all in one place for people to reference. If there's interest, I can start that up here, but it's up to you guys.

[Benman]

My game has improved more by identifying particular stats that were way off from the 2+2 norm than reading all the hand analysis posts combined.

As to people who say no stat posts unless x+ number of hands, that's really silly in a lot of situations.

It takes many hands to identify certain things, true, such as whether you are winning or losing.

It doesn't take many hands at all to identify other things, such as whether a VPIP is appropriate for a paricular level. I recently moved up to 3/6 from 2/4 and am confused about how much the different blind structure should affect my limping in the small blind. I don't need any certain number of hands before I can ask about this, thank you very much.

Bottom line, the microsecond of inconvenience it takes you to skip stat threads that I find useful is outweighed by what I gain from them. Please realize that your views about what is useful information aren't universally shared by everybody.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, the microsecond of inconvenience it takes you to skip stat threads that I find useful is outweighed by what I gain from them. Please realize that your views about what is useful information aren't universally shared by everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take many hands at all to identify other things, such as whether a VPIP is appropriate for a paricular level. I recently moved up to 3/6 from 2/4 and am confused about how much the different blind structure should affect my limping in the small blind. I don't need any certain number of hands before I can ask about this, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

in this situation it would serve you and the forum much better if you searched past posts and wrote a post gathering what you found, and asking pointed and specific questions about differences between the blind structures.

so much better than taking screenshots and asking to be spoonfed information