|
|
#61
11-13-2007, 08:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you could have a look at the set-o-meter. [/ QUOTE ] Can you please explain how to get/filter poker EV to show that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#62
11-13-2007, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
Bottomset nailed it with his post(s).
55k is an incredible small sample size, contrary to popular belief. If my calculations are correct, if your standard deviation/100 hands is 28BB/100 (look in PT), then after 55k hands you are going to be +/- 2.39BB/100 of your expectation (based on 2 standard deviations, of which you will be in 95% of the time). Also, I too recommend checking out the flop-a-set-o-meter program. It will show you how many times you ran KK into AA (and vice versa) and how many times you flopped set-under-set (and vice versa).
|
|
#63
11-13-2007, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, you could have a look at the set-o-meter. [/ QUOTE ] Can you please explain how to get/filter poker EV to show that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It is a completely different program. Google it.
|
|
#64
11-13-2007, 09:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, you could have a look at the set-o-meter. [/ QUOTE ] Can you please explain how to get/filter poker EV to show that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It is a completely different program. Google it. [/ QUOTE ] I am not sure if i qualify but.. Bottomset and 1pokerboy are on the money. A steady 2.5 bb/100 over 100k sample could have you at around 4 bb/100 or 0.5 bb/100 depending on how the cards come. Okay this is at the extreme 1/20 (95%) of probable results, but 1/20 is really not improbable nor that extreme, there are more than 20 regular posters per day on this forum. 1 of those posters could therefore reasonably expect to be a VERY long way from their actual win rate over a seemingly large sample size (100k) Extend this and consider a extremely high confidence limit 0.99%, given the traffic posters might fall into the extreme results category of 100k hands.. so 150k sample size is actually not that much.. cue cries of 'holy [censored].. this game is crazy'. PokerEV is good but unreliable for the reasons outlined. You can play a hand extremely well and pokerev can tell you its -SKbucks. Likewise you can play a hand extremely poorly and pokerEV can tell u its +SKbucks. Example: calling 1/3 of your stack with a lower pocket pair pre, hitting your set on the flop and getting AI for the remaining third. This is a +SKbucks move.. 2/3 of the money goes in with you a solid fav, compared to 1/3 with you a dog. So PokerEV tells u this play is good!! huh!! so take it with a pinch of salt. If you really want to see how you are running you gotta use setometer and pokerev and common sense. Also, FWIW looking at position stats from a 25k total sample is meaningless as you only have 3k per position and i think we would all advocate that as a small sample size.
|
|
#65
11-13-2007, 10:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
Yeah, I always eyplain it like this:
One three-way all-in at NL 400 that you lose with AA or suck out with KK is a difference of $1200 = 150 PTBB. If you play 25 K hands it will make a difference of 0.60 on your PTBB/100 rate. And this is just one hand out of 25000 hands...
|
|
#66
11-13-2007, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
Well, FWIW, this post gives me hope as I've been lamenting a 37k .25 ptbb run. And I know I'm making some glaring mistakes...working on correcting them... This game is just maddening! I consider Renton to be one of the best players at these higher levels, so if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. I didn't realize just how zany the standard deviations are for nl poker.
|
|
#67
11-13-2007, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well, there's no shame in limping once in a while. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] From memory, very few (if any) of the most profitable players have such a high PFR% (at least at $1/$2- I'm not so familiar with $2/$4.) (Also, most of the players that do have a high PFR% are losing players.) Obviously there is no single optimum VP$IP/PFR% combination but I'd certainly recommend experimenting with closer to a single digit PFR%. [/ QUOTE ] wow..this is completely wrong...ignore it if you want to ever be above 2 ptbb/100 at 2/4 [/ QUOTE ] Ignore it if you want to ever be above 2 ptBB/100 at Heads Up Pot Limit Omaha too.
|
|
#68
11-13-2007, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
Ok I downloaded that program but don't know how to makes heads or tails of the graph. If the blue intersects the mid-point of the peak of the graph would that mean you'd flopped a set exactly as often as you should? I've flopped 119 sets from 1128 flops with a pair. I think that's fractionally under expectation.
|
|
#69
11-13-2007, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: anyone who is reasonable at poker, please read and comment
Narena, what is your ptbb/100 at NL400?
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, there's no shame in limping once in a while. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] From memory, very few (if any) of the most profitable players have such a high PFR% (at least at $1/$2- I'm not so familiar with $2/$4.) (Also, most of the players that do have a high PFR% are losing players.) Obviously there is no single optimum VP$IP/PFR% combination but I'd certainly recommend experimenting with closer to a single digit PFR%. [/ QUOTE ] wow..this is completely wrong...ignore it if you want to ever be above 2 ptbb/100 at 2/4 [/ QUOTE ] Ignore it if you want to ever be above 2 ptBB/100 at Heads Up Pot Limit Omaha too. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
