Poker Efficiency Rating (very long, nerdy)

[Keepitsimple]

Im almost as good as the krusher. I have a PER of 1.21.

[disjunction]

I should start by complimenting your efforts. I'm going to look for holes because it's what I do. And no doubt your more equipped to perform this analysis than I'd ever be.

So you're looking if you win your fair share of pots, your fair share when you see the flop, and your fair share of showdowns. The flop, turn, and river are treated as one street. I'd have to be convinced that you can get meaningful information this way (or at least more meaningful than just looking at WtSD and W$ASD). For instance drawing slim or dead is one of the main bad things you can do, and it's not penalized much. Also because of PE1 and PE2 are most of it, I think you might be penalized for making good folds in the middle of the hand.

I think you're on the right track with emphasizing the ER3 more, maybe the folds in the later streets are rougly equivalent, and you can recover the information by emphasizing the showdowns a lot more.

[kurosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurosh,

Your EF1 is really high... what's your VPIP?

[/ QUOTE ]For some reason, my database is going nuts. It took me 10 minutes to open it and when I try to filter for limit hands, it takes another 10 minutes and won't do it.

Edit: Ok, fixed. 37.2VPIP. I played a very laggy showdown style poker over these hands.

[tolbiny]

My last 25,000 hands at 0.23 bb/100

EF1 0.816
EF2 1.102
EF3 1.067

PER 96

[Victor]

16.9% Win%
42.0% W$WSF
52.0% W$SD
5.39 Average # Players

2.58 ASF
0.910 EF1
1.083 EF2
1.039 EF3

per: 102.4

1.14bb/100 fwiw

it shouldnt be a shock that i am slightly above average.

edit: i typed in w$sd wrong. it is actually 55.73% which changes my per to 109.8

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I should start by complimenting your efforts. I'm going to look for holes because it's what I do. And no doubt your more equipped to perform this analysis than I'd ever be.

So you're looking if you win your fair share of pots, your fair share when you see the flop, and your fair share of showdowns. The flop, turn, and river are treated as one street. I'd have to be convinced that you can get meaningful information this way (or at least more meaningful than just looking at WtSD and W$ASD). For instance drawing slim or dead is one of the main bad things you can do, and it's not penalized much. Also because of PE1 and PE2 are most of it, I think you might be penalized for making good folds in the middle of the hand.

I think you're on the right track with emphasizing the ER3 more, maybe the folds in the later streets are rougly equivalent, and you can recover the information by emphasizing the showdowns a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another approach that we could take is to break poker hands down into six categories:

1. You fold without seeing a flop
2. You win without seeing a flop (e.g. blind steals, walks from BB)
3. You see a flop but fold before showdown
4. You see a flop and win without a showdown
5. You go to showdown and win
6. You go to showdown and lose

We could then calculate how much each of these things was worth on the average based on things like the average number of players seeing the flop and at the table. For example, by db shows that going to showdown and losing costs me an average of about 1.75 BB. It also looks like going to a showdown and losing is about twice as costly as seeing a flop and losing (without seeing a showdown) so this would tend to support the 1.5 exponent for EF3.

[tolbiny]

83,000 prior to the other 25k 1.48 bb/100
EF1 0.882
EF2 1.135
EF3 1.067
PER 106.8

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate,

Good post. I've been wondering about stats like this ever since I saw the "Luck Factor" a couple years ago in the original version of the Poki software. I think that was a more complex formula but I have no idea how "accurate" it was.

Anyway, two things.....

My PER for my last 24K hands of 10 data is 96.4. I'm running at -.24 and don't know how much is due to bad play vs running bad. I did think this was interesing....

EF1: .8
EF2: 1.1
EF3: 1.1

How should I interpret this?

Thanks,
gm

[/ QUOTE ]

gm,

Well, I think it's too early to say how to interpret specific numbers (except that >=100 is probably desirable), or even whether this metric is useful at all.

However, one thing that I thought was interesting was that I calculated my PER for my last 4000 hands, over which I've run (played?) fairly poorly and lost -1.34 BB/100. My PER for these hands is 107.2, which is lower than my usual number, but still comfortably above 100.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesing... suggests that the stat is doing it's job. Can you explain a little bit more about why this stat should account for things like being on the bad side of AA/KK or getting 2/3/4-outed on the river fairly often?

Thanks
gm

[/ QUOTE ]

My conjecture is that the PER should not account for things like those, because they are generally out of your control. PER treats all hands lost at showdown the same, whether they're small 4 BB losses or huge 15 BB suckouts.

The baseball analogy is that a pitcher who tends to give up a ton of HR with runners on base will have a much higher ERA than one who gives up a lot of HR with the bases empty. But, there is not much skill involved in pitching with runners on base; most pitchers pitch about as well (or as poorly) with runners on as they do with the bases empty.

[Big Poppa Smurf]

Nate,

I'm only a small-stakes player, but my stats seem out of the ordinary, so I thought I'd contribute.

ASF=2.89
EF1=0.782
EF2=1.134
EF3=1.075
PER=95.3

I have a winrate of 1.8bb/100. It looks like we all have roughly the same range for EF2 and EF3, but there is a lot of variation in EF1.

Thanks for taking the time to work through this whole analysis.

[gehrig]

To oversimplify things, aggressive play wins you more pots at the expense of losing more money when you don't win the pot. PER gives you credit for all the benefits of aggressive play and none of the cost.

Of course, being aggressive is generally a good thing, so there's still going to be a strong correlation between a high PER and a high true winrate. But I don't really know how much value this metric is actually going to have.

I'll bet you a mediocre, not all that aggressive, TAG beating 1/2 for 3BB/100 is going to have a lower PER than someone beating 30/60 for 1BB/100. The 30/60 player is obviously better, but his PER should be much lower

edit: I should say, this PER should be much lower if the goal of PER is to measure true win rate, in the same way that DIPS or component ERA tries to measure "true" ERA