My first 10k hands *WARNING* stats

[RoundTower]

your main problem is when you fold to deep stacked players on the turn or river, and you don't know if you got outplayed or not.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

I like this idea but it sounds impossible to do this in an unbiased way. The results are massively biased by the fact that you can only see hands that went to showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify my protocol to make sure we are all on the same page
I mean that you should pick a set of hands you want to look at, i.e. the first 10,000 hands for the OP.

Then sort by the biggest pots and scroll down selecting the hands that you committed a lot of money into. Let's say at least 20 BB for argument's sake.

Take the top 10 or top 20 hands that meet this criteria.

Yes, this will introduce a bias, but I would guess that some large percent (x) of your winrate is determined by a small percent (y) of your hands where you commit more than (z) BB per pot. Folded hands with less than z BBs won't change the results much.

Unless you played a very very large percentage of hands and called a PSB on every flop and your game had very small pots, I don't think any of the larger hands where you put in <20BB will end up affecting your winrate or standard deviation much.

But this is all supposition, I've never tested out these theories.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
your main problem is when you fold to deep stacked players on the turn or river, and you don't know if you got outplayed or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also I would add that this deepstack problem is unlikely to be a problem for the OP, but would be for you in a live game or higher stakes games online where it seems often the average stack size is greater than the max buyin (if table not infested with shortstackers).

[DakotaKid]

I definitely think looking at the big pots is important (and I do it myself), but something from Ed Miller has always stuck with me. This post was about small stakes limit, but the concept is valid for any game I'm sure.

Sorry to compound the OP's self-analysis, but it's really easy to lose perspective, especially if it's so easy for one to say something like "I run bad in big pots..." And we've all lost perspective at some point or another, isn't that what tilt is all about?

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think looking at the big pots is important (and I do it myself), but something from Ed Miller has always stuck with me. This post was about small stakes limit, but the concept is valid for any game I'm sure.

Sorry to compound the OP's self-analysis, but it's really easy to lose perspective, especially if it's so easy for one to say something like "I run bad in big pots..." And we've all lost perspective at some point or another, isn't that what tilt is all about?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a few sentences you pretty much added nothing.

[DakotaKid]

[ QUOTE ]
In a few sentences you pretty much added nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems harsh. Did you read the link I posted? Cliffs Notes:

Say you find ten examples of a leak in your 10k hands of big decisions in big pots where they cost you an average of 50 BB's apiece. Wow, that leak has cost you five buy-ins.

Now you also have a leak that only cost you 1 BB each time you did it, but you happen to have done it 1,000 times. All of a sudden you've stumbled upon a ten buy-in leak in your game.

Just looking at big pots will cause you to miss these "small" leaks that add up to a much larger loss.

By all means look at the big pots/big decisions, but don't lose track of all the tiny decisions you have to make much more often.

[skitzofranik]

I think the point of troll's and the other's analysis was to help him identify some of his "macro leaks" to see if he is a losing player or not. The fine tuning of those "micro leaks" is much more tedious and won't help the op in his desired goal IMO. He's looking for ways to see if he's profitable at the game and a few major things to change. Not specific pots in which he could be saving a bet.

In looking at your stats I think you definitely need to crank up the AF (aggression factor). Raise more pf and and bet more flops. It seems like you tend to call alot to showdown and only tend to re-pop it once you are holding the nuts

[DakotaKid]

I think these "micro" leaks can be as damaging (or more) to the win rate as the "macro" leaks are.

Let's pretend that a player will automatically limp in with any Axxx when given the chance. But once the flop hits they play that hand perfectly every time from that point on. This would be a "micro" leak in that it only costs a fraction of a BB every time they do it, but it would happen so often that it would add up to a signifcant reduction in BB/100. Just where this would stack up in reducing win rate is obviously debatable, but to regard consideration of this as worth "pretty much... nothing" is ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting OP is doing anything this flagrant, but in any beginner's game (including my own I'm sure) there are going to be plays similar to this that don't show up in the raw stats, but could have huge implications on their win rate.

[EvanJC]

[ QUOTE ]
In looking at your stats I think you definitely need to crank up the AF (aggression factor). Raise more pf and and bet more flops. It seems like you tend to call alot to showdown and only tend to re-pop it once you are holding the nuts



[/ QUOTE ]

true.

[LA_Price]

Just took a quick glance and it appears you aren't aggressive on the flop, turn, or river. Pre-flop looks fine. Would be useful for you to post hands, but for now you should probably thinking of the situations where you aren't betting for:

1. Value- People will call down with very marginal holdings on some boards
2. Deception-semi-bluff, which can also sometimes in omaha be for value.
3. Pure bluffs-people are willing to give up on some boards a lot more than you probably currently think