Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

what the hell are we looking at? I mean there are only 2 guys on there that are positive anyway so the sample size is way too small.

Originally Posted by midas06

Were these datamined hands or people you'd played against?

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

How is your eagle defined?

My 6-max eagle (TAG-Neutral) is defined as:

VP$IP <= 30%
PFR >= 10%
1 <= Aggression Factor (Total) <= 1.5

My cash symbol (TAG-Aggressive) is defined as:

VP$IP <= 30%
PFR >= 10%
Aggression Factor (Total) > 1.5

My green smiley (SLAP) is defined as:

30% <= VP$IP <= 40%
PFR >= 10%
Aggression Factor (Total) <= 1.5

My yellow smiley (SLAA) is defined as:

30% <= VP$IP <= 40%
PFR >= 10%
Aggression Factor (Total) > 1.5

All four of the above types of players in my db are generally winners. The top winners (of players with more than 100 hands logged) are mostly TAG-As and SLAPs, followed by TAG-Ns, followed by SLAAs.

Since my rules have the low cutoff of VP$IP at 30%, they can't stratify at a detailed level within the <30% VP$IP range. Maybe I should change my rules to allow for this (I am just using a 6-max ruleset I grabbed off someone else over a year ago). So this doesn't really tell you whether 22% is better or 27% is better, it just says that aggressive players with VP%IP <30% are doing better than aggressive players with VP$IP >30% and <40% (and interestingly, less aggressive or neutral players with VP$IP < 30% are doing WORSE than neutral players with VP$IP>30% and <40%). Note that I also have a relatively small sample size, so my input is just another datapoint (and really doesn't tell you anything substantial).

My recent PT stats are about 24/15/1.8, and I am consistently winning with these. According to my rules above PT lists me as a TAG-A. My personal feel (with no real PT data to back it up) is that 22-25% VP$IP is better than 20-23% for 6-max.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

What I've always wondered... What cards are the people with 35% VPIPs but the same PFR raise (15%ish) as me playing, and where are they playing them?

I'd bet it comes almost entirely from blind play. Calling raises from the SB and the BB too often - at which theyre probably losing players. These are the type of people who are good enough to beat the game, and might be for 1 to 1.5 bb/100, but their blind play is smacking them in the ass and killing their winrate.

They also cold call a lot more than I do (though I admit, I've begun cold calling a bit more from LP, for better or worse.) which also *tends to be* a losing play.

So theres your difference, in my view. The higher VPIP players (27%-35%ish) are simply higher variance players who play too much in the blinds, and cold call too much, but are solid enough players postflop that they can make a portion of their losses back.

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

it seems like a lot of the advice out there nowadays is advocating a 30/20 style. where do you think all the 300bb downswings are coming from? why is the current suggested bankroll 500bb when it used to be 300bb?

lately i've cared less about stats. in the end, what matters is money in my pocket, not trying to live up to stats of other players. personally, i'm a 20/15 player, at 6max. it's probably not "optimal," but that's fine with me because my style fits my comfort zone, and i seem to be winning with less downswings which more loose/aggressive styles yield (with added expectation).

but then again, all these stats is a moot point when table selection is the single most important poker skill. there are probably still a lot of people out there who think that playing TAG alone is good enough, without regard to their relative position at the table.