My stats

[7csCB]

Hey Andy,

I see nothing wrong with his thread. No name-calling yet. And the content is interesting, is it not?

OP (Attachiant). IMO, your VP$IP is the first thing you want to get under control. I suggest you get Roy West's book to get some basic starting hand guidelines.

CPA:
What is HRC?

First thoughts on why VPIP=70% is too high.
A +2BB/100 winner with a VP$IP of 25% will need to play 45 extra hands for a minimum of 45 BIs (~5.5BB/100). To boot, the aggregate of these hands is likely -EV. Likely result: -3.5BB/100 loser.

From having read your posts, I know you're a strong player. Why don't you provide further detail on how a very high VP$IP could win at low stakes?

cheers

[attachiant]

Thanks.

[attachiant]

This is not a troll or something like that.

It's just I work in a nother counrty than yours, with differents hours, and I have not find the time this week to take a look at all the answers to my post and so didn't ahve the time to answer too.

But next week I'll be free off my work and then I'll have more time to take a further look on all the hands here.

[Truthiness24]

I agree that 3k hands isn't a statistically significant sample, but still I don't think that his results can be ignored.

Occam's Razor: he won on the lowest levels because he outplayed his opponents on the later streets. This won't show up in his own stats because his opponents' lousy play only reveals itself in OP's bottom line.

It is probably optimal to see 4th 50+% of the time in those games, even if that's higher than the collective average. I've sat with my wife at the lowest levels of HORSE and O8 and have definitely found this to be the case. You have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible to outplay bad opponents.

I've read a story (I forget where) about a pro who resolved to play O8 for an entire year seeing the flop EVERY HAND. At the end of the experiment, he was up nearly 6 figures. I believe that he said that he proved his point, kind of: he won, proving that O8 is a postflop game, but he felt like he would have won a lot more had he been even a bit selective.

Even if OP was a spot misguided (and I'm happy that it seems like he's getting something out of this), I think he best demonstrates the benefit of loosening up in game of bad players.

[lstream]

Attachiant,

My comment re trolling was NOT directed at you. This is a great thread that you have started. Sorry if you thought I meant you.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
It is probably optimal to see 4th 50+% of the time in those games, even if that's higher than the collective average. I've sat with my wife at the lowest levels of HORSE and O8 and have definitely found this to be the case. You have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible to outplay bad opponents.

I've read a story (I forget where) about a pro who resolved to play O8 for an entire year seeing the flop EVERY HAND. At the end of the experiment, he was up nearly 6 figures. I believe that he said that he proved his point, kind of: he won, proving that O8 is a postflop game, but he felt like he would have won a lot more had he been even a bit selective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let this be a lesson to all those in the "tight makes right" camp, and those up and coming players careening off in that direction. It's a fine idea for beginners who are likely to get outplayed on later streets even by awful opponents, but many pros and expert level amateurs have proven that once you're the better player in most situations you gain a significant edge by being in a lot of situations.

Question for PT devotees: take a look at OP's action table (the first one). His aggression factor on 3rd st is about 0.5, then jumps up to >1.5 for the next two streets. This says to me that the games are so loose that limping on 3rd in family pots is standard and it plays almost like a four street game with really big antes. Comments?

[BH2O]

I still think variance will kill him even at low limits, but I see your point SG. Most of the low stake tables play very passive. So if he is betting his big hands, and checking down with mediocre holds I could see him being profitable. Once he moves up people tend to make him pay more to see later streets with the mediocre holdings. If you look his stats the VP$IP goes down as he has moved up, but his aggression factor on later streets stays high. He could very well understands the game, but isn’t adjusting to his competition enough.

[Poker CPA]

SG more outstandinf work.

"This says to me that the games are so loose that limping on 3rd in family pots is standard and it plays almost like a four street game with really big antes. Comments?"

7cs

HRC = Horse Race Concept

[jbrennen]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read a story (I forget where) about a pro who resolved to play O8 for an entire year seeing the flop EVERY HAND. At the end of the experiment, he was up nearly 6 figures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no pro, but once in a while, I'll sit for a session of .05/.10 NLHE with the (self-imposed) rule to see every flop. And I have pulled some major up-swings as well as some major down-swings in these sessions. The variance is ridiculous compared to a TAG style of play, but a lot of the players at this level are just so clueless that you can pick them apart after the flop.


Typical chat from a guy who just lost his whole stack with QQ against my 8-3 on a flop of 9-3-3:

"How could you call a 5xBB preflop raise with 8-3???"

This is after I've seen 50 flops in a row, and he's been at the table the whole time. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I of course refrain from pointing out, "How could you put your whole stack on the line against a guy who will play any two cards and who will only call your massive postflop overbet if he is holding 9-9 or a 3?"