Official Stars Regulars Thread - Page 22

Boquense · #**211** 03-19-2007, 08:16 PM

Early April Foolz.

catcher193 · #**212** 03-19-2007, 09:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know winrates are supposed to be a taboo subject, but then again so is discussing individual players. Anyways, including only Stars 2/4 and 3/6 players who 6+ table, what do you think say the 10th best PTBB winrate would be? I think the first number would be a 4, but I'm curious what others would predict.

[/ QUOTE ]
man, in there current state simulated over 1 million hands I don't think higher than 4.

TheWorstPlayer · #**213** 03-20-2007, 12:03 AM

winrate discussions aren't taboo. they're stupid. what would Bld's win rate be in the Stars 2/4 game? Who cares? See why winrate discussions are worthless?

king_of_drafts · #**214** 03-20-2007, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
winrate discussions aren't taboo. they're stupid. what would Bld's win rate be in the Stars 2/4 game? Who cares? See why winrate discussions are worthless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Err...I agree they're stupid but I don't understand why Bld can't beat 2/4

JKratzer · #**215** 03-20-2007, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Err...I agree they're stupid but I don't understand why Bld can't beat 2/4

[/ QUOTE ]

they don't respect his raises

TheWorstPlayer · #**216** 03-20-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
winrate discussions aren't taboo. they're stupid. what would Bld's win rate be in the Stars 2/4 game? Who cares? See why winrate discussions are worthless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Err...I agree they're stupid but I don't understand why Bld can't beat 2/4

[/ QUOTE ]
i wasnt saying he cant beat it. i was saying if he played it for a year his WR would be like 8ptbb/100. does that mean you should benchmark yourself against 8ptbb/100? no, obviously not. you should just try to beat the game for some healthy clip and then move up and make more money. who cares what other people are beating it for? you're only conmparing yourself against the other dudes who happen to be playing that level at that time anyways, not against 'the best poker players'. so just try to win as much as you can and improve as much as you can and that's that. WR discussions are dum.

technologic · #**217** 03-20-2007, 12:28 AM

i saw twp play and his winrates like 2500/10 minutes. true story.

aejones · #**218** 03-20-2007, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know winrates are supposed to be a taboo subject, but then again so is discussing individual players. Anyways, including only Stars 2/4 and 3/6 players who 6+ table, what do you think say the 10th best PTBB winrate would be? I think the first number would be a 4, but I'm curious what others would predict.

[/ QUOTE ]
man, in there current state simulated over 1 million hands I don't think higher than 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know mang. i'm not saying i'm good, but 4 sounds lowish to me.

MTBlue · #**219** 03-20-2007, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
winrate discussions aren't taboo. they're stupid. what would Bld's win rate be in the Stars 2/4 game? Who cares? See why winrate discussions are worthless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Err...I agree they're stupid but I don't understand why Bld can't beat 2/4

[/ QUOTE ]
i wasnt saying he cant beat it. i was saying if he played it for a year his WR would be like 8ptbb/100. does that mean you should benchmark yourself against 8ptbb/100? no, obviously not. you should just try to beat the game for some healthy clip and then move up and make more money. who cares what other people are beating it for? you're only conmparing yourself against the other dudes who happen to be playing that level at that time anyways, not against 'the best poker players'. so just try to win as much as you can and improve as much as you can and that's that. WR discussions are dum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that people posting individual "winrates" is dumb. Mainly because people tend to select the data sample that makes them look the best. (e.g. I was surprised at the old Party 5/10 winrates after reading for years on this forum that the average good player made "5 ptbb/100.")

However, winrates have a place. Individual players run hot or cold against certain opponents and that skews an individuals perception of the best player. Everytime somebody starts a "best regular" thread, the rankings of the players should be determined by winrates and amount won.

I understand that you would prefer that the "best player" be the player with the most creative lines, hardest to hand read against, etc., but there are relatively accurate ways to differentiate players by winrate (which over time approaches the theoretical result that actually measures your poker skill). Also the scorecard gives players lower on the totem pole the motivation to improve (which I suppose is why I never post winrates).

TheWorstPlayer · #**220** 03-20-2007, 01:35 AM

I disagree that the 'best regulars' should be ranked by win rate. Money per hour is probably the most meaningful measure of 'best player' for a given level. But the guy who grinds out 2ptbb/100 on 20 tables is pretty boring to talk about. And the guy who can win at 10ptbb/100 but only by table selecting like mad on one table on weekends is also pretty boring to talk about. The guys who are interesting to talk about are the guy who take creative lines, are difficult to hand read against, are good hand readers, use position well, etc. If I just wanted to know the results of data mining, I would just data mine.