Interesting Stox claim

[Aaron W.]

He is currently in the well in his own forum:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you play against an unknown, what are the first things you pick up? Esp. things like timing tells, bet sizes etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

probably vpip, because that only takes 25 hands - I'm still a big believer in small sample stats because I think it's much more reliable than 1-2 single observatinos.


I do however take care to make sure and check showndown hands in showdown pots and often I can tell if a player is poor in 1-2 hands. (this is not something special, most can do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Any comments?

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Any comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. It's no secret that I think too much time and energy is spent on table selection in all online games but most especially in nano- and micro-limit online games. VPIP/PFR are a very good source of information that can be gathered relatively quickly.

I will add that I think it's even more useful at a NL table, tho.

[Fadook]

You can probably say after just 25 hands that someone is too loose judging by their VPIP. I'm not so sure you can say just how tight a tight player is however with that small a sample.

I agree with the "1-2" single observations point; if a guy is still fairly new to the table he'll often be testing the waters.

[DBSpecial]

Hardly controversial to claim that you can tell if a player is good or bad after 1-2 showdown hands, though I'd say you can tell if someone is a terrible player or not after a few showdowns, but not anything more specific than that.

Great topic though, full of interesting stuff.

[DavidC]

boz, I disagree.

There are some winning NL players in the highest games out there with vpip 40+

It's more useful in limit because it's more indicative of skill in limit (discipline, at least).

[Xylocain]

25 hands equals to maybe 40-60 decisions... more if the person plays loose. If I could pay attention to how many of those someone got right that is actually a lot of information.

[Sushiglutton]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still a big believer in small sample stats because I think it's much more reliable than 1-2 single observatinos.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does he claim that 25 hands stat is more important than 1-2 hands you've seen played to showdown? I'm not sure I agree with that. At least not if you want to spot TAG-fish.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still a big believer in small sample stats because I think it's much more reliable than 1-2 single observatinos.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does he claim that 25 hands stat is more important than 1-2 hands you've seen played to showdown? I'm not sure I agree with that. At least not if you want to spot TAG-fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of the quote is that he's saying picking up someone's VPIP (at least enough of a sense of it to start to classify the player) takes as little as 25 hands. He's also saying that 1-2 hand observations is less reliable than stats over small samples. He does put forth a caveat of "if the player is pretty bad, then all you really need to see is 1-2 showdown hands" (which I agree with).

I think the point he's trying to emphasize is that it's possible to read too much into a single odd play that he made this one time and that you need to put your early faith in the stats until you develop a read based on more pattern samples than just the first couple.