where my profit came from - top 12 hands

[LVGamb00ler]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Hand Times Win % Net BB/Hand
AA 1,398 78.61 94.45 2.86
KK 1,390 70.94 64.90 2.02
QQ 1,364 64.88 52.42 1.50
AKo 2,849 53.67 41.70 0.65
JJ 1,379 58.74 27.32 1.00
TT 1,324 53.40 27.32 0.85
AQo 2,830 48.37 26.56 0.37
AKs 987 59.17 21.59 1.06
AJo 2,788 42.93 17.93 0.30
99 1,415 50.04 17.60 0.67
AQs 945 53.44 14.63 0.67
77 1,399 41.32 11.77 0.31

lesser hands statistics omitted but totals are correct

Tot: 303,927 11.41 100.00 0.01
</pre><hr />

These results are from middle limits on Party Poker.

The Net column has been normalized to produce a net win of 100. In other words the figures in the Net column are % of total win.

To produce this table I used Snagit to capture the text from the first six columns of the Known Starting Hands table from the General Info. page in PT. Then edited out the Avg/Hand column and normalized the Net column.

I'm just interested if my results are roughly in line with others.

G'luck all,
LVGamb00ler

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just interested if my results are roughly in line with others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I never win with big pairs and big aces. My aces always get cracked!!! I think my most profitable hands are J4s and 53o. (53 is my lucky hand).

<font color="white"> Sorry for the sarcasm, and thanks for the table. Yeah, it's pretty standard to have won most of your profit with big pairs and big aces.</font>

[golferbrent]

I don't think you have correctly normalized your Net column either. The math doesn't make any sense...

I am surprised that your result are so poor with A-Qo... very interesting. Everything else is normal... definitely w/n range.

[LVGamb00ler]

I'm pretty sure I normalized the Net column correctly. Here is exactly what I did.

For each hand I took the Net win total for it and divided it by the net win for all hands and multiplied by 100. That should produce the % of total win for that hand.

The data included in original post only shows the top 12 hands in terms of % of net win. If all hands were shown The Net column would add up to a total win of 100 units.

G'luck all,
LVGamb00ler

[LVGamb00ler]

Also note that this table is sorted by the net contribution to the bottom line, not by hands winning percent. So a hand that wins less % but occurs much more frequently may contribute more $$. For example AQo is higher in this table than AKs. Perhaps that makes the table look 'funny'.

G'luck all,
LVGamb00ler

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I normalized the Net column correctly. Here is exactly what I did.

For each hand I took the Net win total for it and divided it by the net win for all hands and multiplied by 100. That should produce the % of total win for that hand.

The data included in original post only shows the top 12 hands in terms of % of net win. If all hands were shown The Net column would add up to a total win of 100 units.

G'luck all,
LVGamb00ler

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sum to 100.

[LVGamb00ler]

Please read ALL of the original post again.

See the line that says 'lesser hands statistics omitted....'

LVGamb00ler

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
Please read ALL of the original post again.

See the line that says 'lesser hands statistics omitted....'

LVGamb00ler

[/ QUOTE ]

If hands are omitted then the total should be less than 100%, right?

[CardSharpCook]

this is hilarious. "so I threw a bunch of numbers down on excel. I did some math to make sure that they mean next to nothing. Oh by the way, you guys find that your winningest hands are 77-AA, AJ+?"

[LVGamb00ler]

Are you guys REALLY this dense?

Warning! Entering hand holding mode!

The hands listed are the top 12 money winning hands out of 169 possible hands. By far the majority of my hands are overall losers. In fact I lost money on 126 of them. Those losing hands obviously aren't in the table given. If I had listed all 169 hands, the totals that are shown would be obviously correct and verifiable. I left out the boring data, that's all. FYI, the bottom 12 hands contribute -82.2% to my bottom line.

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that 94%+ of my winnings come from AA only? I knew it would be a high percentage but am surprised by just how high! Does anyone else have similar numbers?

CardSharpCook - great contribution! We're all in awe of your brilliant power of deduction regarding how the numbers were produced. If you don't find the information interesting please exercise your free will and ignore it.

LVGamb00ler