a thought on winrate, table selection, and shot taking

[Abbaddabba]

But his pool of knowledge is no more complete one day than it is the next. At least not to any meaningful degree. If you have comparably useful knowledge, and you opt for identical conditions (table selection process doesnt change), you don't _expect_ the conditions to be better one day than the next. Or rather, you expect there to be a difference (a disturbance term), but it's as likely to be positive as it is negative.

Maybe one day will have an unusually high number of maniacs that you have datamined online. Or maybe one day has an atypically large supply of "fish". In as much the abundance of those types of players is determined by unpredictable factors, it's random for all intents and purposes.

[Scotty.]

[ QUOTE ]
But his pool of knowledge is no more complete one day than it is the next. At least not to any meaningful degree. If you have comparably useful knowledge, and you opt for identical conditions (table selection process doesnt change), you don't _expect_ the conditions to be better one day than the next. Or rather, you expect there to be a difference (a disturbance term), but it's as likely to be positive as it is negative.

Maybe one day will have an unusually high number of maniacs that you have datamined online. Or maybe one day has an atypically large supply of "fish". In as much the abundance of those types of players is determined by unpredictable factors, it's random for all intents and purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here. I will not sit down at a table without prior knowledge of at least 2 or 3 of the players at my table to be poor players. If I see that 4 or 5 of the players are poor, but the only seat available would put me in a difficult spot due to their playing style (ie. between two maniacs) I will not sit down. I will find another table or wait for a better seat. When I open up a table where I have no stats on any of the players, I will leave it open and datamine for 30 hands or so, just so I can get a rough idea as to the style of the table. I realize that on most sites, this process is not possible, however with Party's fish pool, datamining capabilities, and sheer number of tables, there is no reason for me not to.

Does that clear things up, or did I miss what you are trying to get at?

[Jstyal]

[ QUOTE ]
yes there is such thing as perfect postflop play

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in theory (and a very weak one at that) as it's practically impossible. Poker would have to cease to be poker (all opponent hole cards would have to be made available to you) in order for this to be possible. This isn’t “chess” or “blackjack” where a perfect mathematical strategy can be devised because all possible situations are accounted for. In poker, you’re dealing with so many changing random variables—the cards, the people—that claiming to play or have perfect strategy for it would be baseless and misleading.


[ QUOTE ]
The best postflop players in the world cannot overcome the problem of making constant preflop errors.

[/ QUOTE ]


I’m curious to know more (I'm not sure I follow) of what you mean by “constant preflop errors” and whose definition you’re using and at what blind structure, limits, and player position these errors would be possible in.

Some of best players in the world play hands that have a slight or marginal expectation (in some cases even slightly or overall -EV) to begin with, according to large databases of hands from winning players, to create more profitable situations forthemselves later in the game.

Stealing with hands you would normally not open with when you have position and playing purposefully “badly” or “out of the ordinary” in some hands are just but a couple of examples of this concept. This is not a new concept—although it may be too advanced for some—and even TOP touched on this briefly. You’ll never see any good players talking a lot about this though, and I don’t blame them. No one listens, it’s over people’s heads.


[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think that there is not a single player in the world that is a long-term winner in the blinds (this has been proven)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Goes to show you how important and valuable having position really is. For instance, while having position can make otherwise inherently “unprofitable” hands profitable, a tiny/marginal +EV hand from the CO/Button is now a sure loser in the blinds probably in all but the weakest, passive games. Being forced twice in a rotation to put up the only antes (ok. blinds) without seeing your hand AND in the worse possible position AND then with the rake AND with all the aggressive stealing, many players will forego taking many of these hands to showdown or at the very least will convince them stop playing most of them (which is suboptimal). Throw in the many errors people make while playing in the blinds (because of the lack thereof 6-max blind strategy) and you see red all the time. All these factors—not just one, and certainly not because of “preflop errors”—combined contribute to the losses in the blinds.

The fact is that we don’t know how worse (or better) our bb/hand in the blinds can be if we started to play a very large majority of them (with or without frequently going to showdown) or if we refrained from playing a lot of them. To my knowledge, the data is just not there for further analysis. Maybe such an experiment over a large sample size has already been done and someone can refer me to it. This is something I’m interested in.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting money in with hands that are huge underdogs is too big of a mistake to make up postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m assuming you are talking about blinds here still and, frankly, you statement sounds like a blanket statement void of any legitimacy. You always have incomplete information at your disposal—mainly, you do not know what cards have been dealt and which ones will be forthcoming on the board; you do not which cards will be burned; you do not know the value of your hand in relation to your opponents. So, not only can you never ascertain that your hand or any else’s hand is a “huge” underdog or “huge” favorite with any meaningful consistency but you shouldn’t get in the habit of trying to since the fixed bet size in relation to the pot in limit will have you playing many significant underdogs anyway, some times without you knowing—and that’s ok.


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't trust my word, then maybe you would be willing to listen to Ed Miller:

"Good hand selection is the foundation of winning hold'em. No matter how well you play otherwise, if you often start with the wrong hands, you will be a long-term loser."

-SSHE pg. 46

Read that entire section for evidence supporting that quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you cite me Ed’s SSHH book in support of your statements and as a source for winning at 6-max tells me, no disrespect, I may be a little over your head here. I remember that book being made for low-limit ring casino play, no? What 6-max limits has Ed consistently beaten and for how many hands? Nothing against Ed, he’s a good guy and has a lot of solid things to say and is very good at explaining them, but I don’t remember reading anything but very simple concepts on how to beat ridiculously loose-passive casino games for a new player in that book.

[Jstyal]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit to clarify what I mean by a preflop error in case you did not understand that. Using PokerTracker and PokerAce, as well as your own reads, you have seen a player that raises 12% of his hands from the UTG position. This player raises, and all other players fold to you on the Button. It is a mistake to play KTo here. If you go to showdown here every time, you will win about 34% of the time against this range of hands. You are investing considerably more than 34% of the pot preflop (assuming SB and BB fold).

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m sorry but I disagree. It’s not a mistake. It’s not a question about how many times your hand “wins” in an all-in scenario but a question about (a) how much you can “extract” from your opponents on average when you have them cornered and/or when you have the best of it (b) and how likely is it for one or both blinds to come in the pot that should determine whether you play KTo or not in this spot.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, If you consider an opponent in your small limit game as a "TAG" chances are 99.8% of the time he is actually "RAG." These players are as bad—if not worse—that your typical “fish” because not only do they misplay their hands and go too far with the ones that are beaten frequently, you also have the added advantage of narrowing their hand range down to a few hands accurately the majority of time. They have no creativity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to point out, if all opponents play the same postflop, then I'll always leave a table of 30/20s for a table of 50/0s. You'll make more at the latter by definition. Its not about being able to make money at any table, its about the opportunity cost of playing opponents who make less mistakes preflop.

You also say that you think the tighter guys are often worse postflop. That's very debateable, but you also have to factor in if they are so much worse that it makes up for making less preflop mistakes.

[XRolandX]

I have done this and I know driven my opponents crazy- I start at one seat and if I find myself out of position, but the table is profitible, (players dropping or busting and new ones coming in), I leave the table and come back to a different seat! That's a pretty obvious move but the fish don't seem to notice. Is there any downside to this?

[Scotty.]

OK, I give up trying to explain this to you, as I clearly either don't have the verbal/written ability to do so and get my point across, or you are just refusing to believe what has been mathematically proven by many. Instead, since you are "over my head here" I will put forth a challenge to you. I will wager a substantial amount of money at 5:1 odds that you cannot come out > 0BB/100 after 30K hands of 3/6 6-max or higher playing approximately a 50/5 style preflop.

This should not be difficult at all for you, considering that 3/6 is a very easy game with very poor opponents for the most part. The preflop standards should not matter, as all the money is extracted postflop. Any two can win right?

Edit: 10:1 odds

[Guruman]

I'm a rag. Id like to be at your table when you try this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here. I will not sit down at a table without prior knowledge of at least 2 or 3 of the players at my table to be poor players. If I see that 4 or 5 of the players are poor, but the only seat available would put me in a difficult spot due to their playing style (ie. between two maniacs) I will not sit down. I will find another table or wait for a better seat. When I open up a table where I have no stats on any of the players, I will leave it open and datamine for 30 hands or so, just so I can get a rough idea as to the style of the table. I realize that on most sites, this process is not possible, however with Party's fish pool, datamining capabilities, and sheer number of tables, there is no reason for me not to.

Does that clear things up, or did I miss what you are trying to get at?


[/ QUOTE ]

When you wake up in the morning, do you have any way of predicting whether your ability to find a 'good spot' will result in better or worse conditions than at the same time the day before?

I dont think that anyone can.

We try our best to find good tables the same way every time. The table conditions from which we are able to choose from, and unless you look over the very long term (in years), are not changing in any discernable way on average.


The issue isnt that you're playing against completely random opponents. You exercize some degree of control over who you choose to play against. But you dont expect them to be better or worse ... ON AVERAGE from session to session. You obviously expect them to be different. But they're no more likely to be better or worse, if you spend the same amount of time scouting tables (and such).

[Scotty.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here. I will not sit down at a table without prior knowledge of at least 2 or 3 of the players at my table to be poor players. If I see that 4 or 5 of the players are poor, but the only seat available would put me in a difficult spot due to their playing style (ie. between two maniacs) I will not sit down. I will find another table or wait for a better seat. When I open up a table where I have no stats on any of the players, I will leave it open and datamine for 30 hands or so, just so I can get a rough idea as to the style of the table. I realize that on most sites, this process is not possible, however with Party's fish pool, datamining capabilities, and sheer number of tables, there is no reason for me not to.

Does that clear things up, or did I miss what you are trying to get at?


[/ QUOTE ]

When you wake up in the morning, do you have any way of predicting whether your ability to find a 'good spot' will result in better or worse conditions than at the same time the day before?

I dont think that anyone can.

We try our best to find good tables the same way every time. The table conditions from which we are able to choose from, and unless you look over the very long term (in years), are not changing in any discernable way on average.


The issue isnt that you're playing against completely random opponents. You exercize some degree of control over who you choose to play against. But you dont expect them to be better or worse ... ON AVERAGE from session to session. You obviously expect them to be different. But they're no more likely to be better or worse, if you spend the same amount of time scouting tables (and such).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that this generally holds true. It has been suggested by many that the games are slowly getting tougher, but as you stated, that is the long run. Also, games are noticeably easier on a Friday/Saturday than they are on a Monday, and likewise generally easier at 8PM than at 11AM. That aside, are you trying to make a point that relates to strategy in any way, or just stating that conditions stay the same on average from day to day? If you do have a strategic point, what exactly is it that you are suggesting as a result of table conditions being more or less the same from day to day?