Project - Compiled stats for Short Handed Games

sparky3474 · #1 07-02-2007, 11:25 PM

Back in April of 2005 CallMeIshmael put together a study with the help of many winning players that are members of this forum. The study compiled what he believed were the most important statistics poker tracker gathers and it was very well received. It was done for 2/4 and 3/6 full ring limit holdem and is a terrific tool for finding leaks in your game. Well guys, he has agreed to do another study if enough interest exists for short handed games. He is willing to do one using 2/4 and 3/6 limit holdem for 6 handed games. What we need to do this study is a group of willing, winning players ie. greater than 1.4BB/100 hands and over 20K hands. It would include the same stats as the previous study and would include positional winrate too if you are willing to include it. So if you would like to participate I would like you to post up a yes, I am interested, in this thread, and after we have 20 to 30 people that are willing we will give you the details for the rest of the information needed. For most people it will only take 5 to 10 minutes of their time and excel or notepad applications. Okay guys, post up and state whether you will be in the 2/4 or 3/6 group, or both. Oh, this information will never be released, just results posted in here and methods will be in place so that that the information can be sent to me anonymously, without ever linking to their 2p2 account.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

sparky3474 · #2 07-04-2007, 12:21 AM

I am disappointed, what is it, no Brandi content, no winners, no one cares?

Leader · #3 07-04-2007, 12:56 AM

hmmm...I'd have some questions about whether this is statistically sound. 20K hands is very little. 15% of people with a 1.4 win rate over 20K are losing players. There's also the issue of games not being uniform. i.e. the style that beats WSEX 2/4 may not beat Stars 2/4. not to mention that the the WSEx player might be excluded because he's a breaking even player at the table while making 2BB/100 in rakeback. Thus he's by any objective measure a more successful player then someone making 1.4, but he's not included.

sparky3474 · #4 07-04-2007, 07:45 AM

Leader, When CallMeIshmael did the previous study it was thought to be some great work by many , go look at it, it makes a lot of sense. I am not a statistician, maybe it is not enough hands but it was a starting point. Almost everyone who uses PT wants to know what others results are and that's why we see people asking for advice after 1k, 2.5k, 10k hands, give them some reference. Does not look like it matters much anyway, no one cares.

Oink · #5 07-04-2007, 07:51 AM

The cutoff at 1.4BB/100 after 20k is pointless. I would much rather be a 1BB/100 winner at AP than a 1.4BB/100 winner at Party. Or a 0.5BB/100 winner at wpex than a 1.5BB/100 at Stars.

You have to consider how much people make including everything. The long term winners in the AP games are better than the long term winners in the same games at party. No question about that!

Moseley · #6 07-04-2007, 09:09 AM

"The cutoff at 1.4BB/100 after 20k is pointless. I would much rather be a 1BB/100 winner at AP than a 1.4BB/100 winner at Party. Or a 0.5BB/100 winner at wpex than a 1.5BB/100 at Stars."

So, am I correct in interpreting what you are saying as wpex is the hardest site of those you mentioned.
AP is the next hardest to win at.
PokerStars the 3rd hardest.
Party the easiest.

The only reasons I can think of for playing anywhere other than the easiest site, is rakeback and maybe you don't like the software of a particular site, or concerned about security.

Moseley · #7 07-04-2007, 09:17 AM

"the WSEx player might be excluded because he's a breaking even player at the table while making 2BB/100 in rakeback. Thus he's by any objective measure a more successful player then someone making 1.4, but he's not included."

These players, IMHO, should be excluded. They are playing in a manner that allows them to break even in their play, while having the house pay them 2bb/100. They are earning an hourly wage for playing poker. Just like a shill.

I don't see why we would be interested in having the stats of shills included with the stats of players earning their big bets on their own.

ILOVEPOKER929 · #8 07-04-2007, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The cutoff at 1.4BB/100 after 20k is pointless. I would much rather be a 1BB/100 winner at AP than a 1.4BB/100 winner at Party. Or a 0.5BB/100 winner at wpex than a 1.5BB/100 at Stars.

You have to consider how much people make including everything. The long term winners in the AP games are better than the long term winners in the same games at party. No question about that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Its not about BB/100 any more. People have gotten smarter and realized this stat is meaningless. If you wanna stat that has meaning try: Money Made Playing Poker Per Year.

callmedonnie · #9 07-04-2007, 01:50 PM

I remember that thread, this is a good idea for 6 max. There is always this too.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...&PHPSESSID=

Leader · #10 07-04-2007, 02:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Leader, When CallMeIshmael did the previous study it was thought to be some great work by many ,

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot more things people think are great in the world then great things. I applaud CMI's effort but is method is badly flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
go look at it,

[/ QUOTE ]

I did so again. My opinion hasn't changed.

[ QUOTE ]
it makes a lot of sense. I am not a statistician,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have two semesters of college level statistics and am currently working in a paid research position which will produce a publishable academic paper on survey methodology and coverage bias. So let's say I got you by a nose.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe it is not enough hands but it was a starting point.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is picking a random number between 1 and 100 and making that your VPiP. Is CMI method better? Sure. Is it even relatively accurate? Not IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Almost everyone who uses PT wants to know what others results are

[/ QUOTE ]

They shouldn't. Besides they'll just find what they want to find. If they think a given strategy is valid they'll accept the data when it shows a profit and chalk the result up to variance otherwise. And vis versa.

[ QUOTE ]
and that's why we see people asking for advice after 1k, 2.5k, 10k hands, give them some reference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct reference is a statistics text.