Is Kos Leaking? - Page 3

jhill3535 · #21 07-10-2007, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Position 3 is negative, but I think it's simply a small sample size problem. I ran into an overset 125 BB deep, and I lost an AIPF 81/19 there.

Position 1 is low for three reasons: had to fold AA deep vs. a station when he overbet a 4-to-a-straight river, JJ ran into AA vs. a MP limp/caller (WTF?), and I paid off a limp/caller with TPQK (he limped from 2nd position with AK). If you take out those loses (which appear to all be "flukes" and not position-dependent), it's up to ~$325...not great, but better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is reasonable statistically speaking, but if you normalize those 2 positions up to a profit each of $300 for each spot due to these "freak occurances" (which probably just haven't had time to even out), then you will add about $515 to your total profit and increase your ptbb/100 to about 5.50.

Like I said, this is probably not a correct way of looking at it statistically, but it is reasonable in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
You guys that have 30-35 VP$IP from the button...are you limping with hands like K3s or Q8? What are the absolute trashiest hands you're playing OTB?

[/ QUOTE ]

In an unraised pot on the button, I would say my range would be something like:

22+,A2s+,K6s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,64s+,5 4s,43s,A2o+,K9o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o,98o,87o,76o

That is about 40% (adjusted up or down for table dynamics). Depending on number of limpers I am going to raise most of the top of the range and some of the bottom of the range. If it is folded to me, I will pretty much raise the entire range. I would usually play about 67% of these hands from the CO as well.

Steelerman · #22 07-10-2007, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a stupid PT question. When you're looking at position stats, why are there always so few hands shown for UTG (position 7 if you play 10-handed, 6 if you play 9-handed)? You can see it here for Kos.

I play at Stars, which is 9-handed and my total hands in position 6 over my last 42K hands are only 1955 while the others are all over 5K.

jhill3535 · #23 07-10-2007, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just a stupid PT question. When you're looking at position stats, why are there always so few hands shown for UTG (position 7 if you play 10-handed, 6 if you play 9-handed)? You can see it here for Kos.

I play at Stars, which is 9-handed and my total hands in position 6 over my last 42K hands are only 1955 while the others are all over 5K.

[/ QUOTE ]

The easiest explanation is that there is an open seat, so UTG becomes position 5 instead of 6, so alot of your 5's will actually be UTGs. Also, I believe if a player is sitting out this moves UTG to position 5 as well, but I could be wrong here.

Steelerman · #24 07-10-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a stupid PT question. When you're looking at position stats, why are there always so few hands shown for UTG (position 7 if you play 10-handed, 6 if you play 9-handed)? You can see it here for Kos.

I play at Stars, which is 9-handed and my total hands in position 6 over my last 42K hands are only 1955 while the others are all over 5K.

[/ QUOTE ]

The easiest explanation is that there is an open seat, so UTG becomes position 5 instead of 6, so alot of your 5's will actually be UTGs. Also, I believe if a player is sitting out this moves UTG to position 5 as well, but I could be wrong here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, that makes alot of sense. It would also explain why my position #5 is a little bit lower too. The rest all are pretty uniform because I'll typically leave if more than 2 players are sitting out.

Kos13 · #25 07-10-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Position 3 is negative, but I think it's simply a small sample size problem. I ran into an overset 125 BB deep, and I lost an AIPF 81/19 there.

Position 1 is low for three reasons: had to fold AA deep vs. a station when he overbet a 4-to-a-straight river, JJ ran into AA vs. a MP limp/caller (WTF?), and I paid off a limp/caller with TPQK (he limped from 2nd position with AK). If you take out those loses (which appear to all be "flukes" and not position-dependent), it's up to ~$325...not great, but better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is reasonable statistically speaking, but if you normalize those 2 positions up to a profit each of $300 for each spot due to these "freak occurances" (which probably just haven't had time to even out), then you will add about $515 to your total profit and increase your ptbb/100 to about 5.50.

Like I said, this is probably not a correct way of looking at it statistically, but it is reasonable in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
You guys that have 30-35 VP$IP from the button...are you limping with hands like K3s or Q8? What are the absolute trashiest hands you're playing OTB?

[/ QUOTE ]

In an unraised pot on the button, I would say my range would be something like:

22+,A2s+,K6s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,64s+,5 4s,43s,A2o+,K9o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o,98o,87o,76o

That is about 40% (adjusted up or down for table dynamics). Depending on number of limpers I am going to raise most of the top of the range and some of the bottom of the range. If it is folded to me, I will pretty much raise the entire range. I would usually play about 67% of these hands from the CO as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really correct that way either because that's counting all of them as "wins" when the actual EV is simply x% of the pot. However, I do think it's probably a reasonable explanation for why profits dip in those two positions when everything else looks the same.

Kos13 · #26 07-10-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a stupid PT question. When you're looking at position stats, why are there always so few hands shown for UTG (position 7 if you play 10-handed, 6 if you play 9-handed)? You can see it here for Kos.

I play at Stars, which is 9-handed and my total hands in position 6 over my last 42K hands are only 1955 while the others are all over 5K.

[/ QUOTE ]

The easiest explanation is that there is an open seat, so UTG becomes position 5 instead of 6, so alot of your 5's will actually be UTGs. Also, I believe if a player is sitting out this moves UTG to position 5 as well, but I could be wrong here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, that makes alot of sense. It would also explain why my position #5 is a little bit lower too. The rest all are pretty uniform because I'll typically leave if more than 2 players are sitting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

JHill is right, and I think it's also skewed because some hands were played on UB (10 handed) while others were on FTP (9 handed).

Apparently, I should post one of these threads more often for good luck. I played a quick hour-and-a-half session: 429 hands, +3 BI. I'm feeling a bit better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: Also, relevant or not, I've run ~14.4/10 for the last two days, and things have been more fun than usual, even when I've just been breaking even. Raising is teh nutz.

RyanCMU · #27 07-10-2007, 06:28 PM

Not trying to be a dick and I'll also preface this by saying I only thread the posts of yours which included your stats (both the original and the breakdown by pos.) and I have't read anything else in this thread...

So...

This is 14k hands dude, don't sweat it. Your numbers look solid, work on blind play a little bit more, but everything looks for hte most part A O K, prolly just the variance rollercoaster.

Tough it up log a shiton more hands and then we can start analyzing and trying to plug some leaks...

But yea man c'mon 14k hands and your panicking, some of us play that in a a few sessions.

You'll be alright.

Kos13 · #28 07-10-2007, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to be a dick and I'll also preface this by saying I only thread the posts of yours which included your stats (both the original and the breakdown by pos.) and I have't read anything else in this thread...

So...

This is 14k hands dude, don't sweat it. Your numbers look solid, work on blind play a little bit more, but everything looks for hte most part A O K, prolly just the variance rollercoaster.

Tough it up log a shiton more hands and then we can start analyzing and trying to plug some leaks...

But yea man c'mon 14k hands and your panicking, some of us play that in a a few sessions.

You'll be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know...I tend to start panicking and assume there's a huge leak when I go through a rough streak.

It is getting really f'ing boring playing 3-4 tables at once. The new computer gets here in a couple weeks, and then I can finally start 9-tabling and actually playing a decent number of hands.

RyanCMU · #29 07-10-2007, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to be a dick and I'll also preface this by saying I only thread the posts of yours which included your stats (both the original and the breakdown by pos.) and I have't read anything else in this thread...

So...

This is 14k hands dude, don't sweat it. Your numbers look solid, work on blind play a little bit more, but everything looks for hte most part A O K, prolly just the variance rollercoaster.

Tough it up log a shiton more hands and then we can start analyzing and trying to plug some leaks...

But yea man c'mon 14k hands and your panicking, some of us play that in a a few sessions.

You'll be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know...I tend to start panicking and assume there's a huge leak when I go through a rough streak.

It is getting really f'ing boring playing 3-4 tables at once. The new computer gets here in a couple weeks, and then I can finally start 9-tabling and actually playing a decent number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good. However, if you have been running bad latley and are questioning your game in the least little bit, jumping right into more tables, probably isn't such a great idea at first, at least not until you are working out of your downswing and are more comfortable with your game.