|
Demiparadigm
|
10-14-2005, 03:33 AM
Post subject: CMI's TW post (2+2)
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=5&o=7&fpart=1
I just ran across this again...
I find it interesting that Fnord, Jeff and I all have stats well on the loose side of the mean.
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
pokerfanatic
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 6max limit tables
Posts: 1,968
|
|
i'm running bit tight time to open up preflop...
|
|
“Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today.” ~ James Dean ~
"Poker is a lot like sex, peoples perceived ability usually blinds the truth" ~ me ~
"God bless him. Got to bet big to win big! GAMB00L!!!" ~ Fnord
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Consider that there is some 3/6 in there. With a 1/3 structure I rarely bother with my small blind.
|
|
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
ya 3-6 with a 1-3 blind structure, i'll fold all sorts of crap. Hell i'm already pretty tight with the 1-2 structure
|
|
take your ego out of the equation and judge the situation dispassionately
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmontis
Hell i'm already pretty tight with the 1-2 structure
|
I've started paying more attention to who's in the hand when in spots like this. If there is some idiot in what looks to be a 3-4 way pot who is going to take A2/22 to the river unimproved and tell me where I'm at on every street, then I'll complete a pretty wide range looking to lead with a good pair. I also like guys who open limp from LP then auto-bet any flop. I check/raise any piece of the board against them and plan to take it to the river.
|
|
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
ya the only downside to that is it going, check,check,check, autobet, you raise, and 2 guys cold call or some crap.
i've noticed having passive players between you and an aggro can really suck as far as "getting information", but there's more money in the pot for a lot of hands.
|
|
take your ego out of the equation and judge the situation dispassionately
|
|
Demiparadigm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
The most important question to me is:
What do these numbers reflect?
Theoretically, the mean should be near the ideal...
However I adamantly believe that this is not the ideal way to play, as you are missing a lot of value.
The corollary to missed value is decreased risk.
So, I hypothesize that while these numbers represent the expected numbers for a winning player, the reason the mean is what it is, comes from the increased chance of failure with numbers closer to the "ideal"
Since my theoretical "ideal" numbers have a greater risk of ruin, a smaller percentage of players with those numbers are winners.
{Blackjack example witheld, which few would understand and less would care}
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Consider that when you're playing fewer tables in good seats at better tables, you can play more hands profitably.
Also, there is a broad spectrum of hands that are about break even.
|
|
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
ya it's possible that your seat sucks so much the only hands that will keep you above water are the premiums,
I saw this earlier in a 4-8 6max game and left 20 mins after the game started to go bad
|
|
take your ego out of the equation and judge the situation dispassionately
|
|
Trikflow77
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: im so asian
Posts: 1,460
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fnord
Also, there is a broad spectrum of hands that are about break even.
|
If this is the case (which it is), what is the point of playing them if your opponents are not aware. I understand this when your playing a game with thinking opponents, but party 2/4-3/6 is bad enough i think you can get by with out "mixing it up" too much.
|
|
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fnord
Also, there is a broad spectrum of hands that are about break even.
|
If this is the case (which it is), what is the point of playing them if your opponents are not aware. I understand this when your playing a game with thinking opponents, but party 2/4-3/6 is bad enough i think you can get by with out "mixing it up" too much. |
Because I want to become a better player and destroy (and not just 1BB/100 beat) bigger games. The simple fact of the matter is that when I added more hands in good spots, my win-rate went up and I had fewer losing days. It could be luck, but looking back at hands (lots of silly calls, misplaced aggression and free cards) and the increasing sample size, I'm becomming sold. I brought up the point, because I might be erring towards the break-even and can't quite cover the rake zone of hands, at which point I'm not really making a mistake, right? Finally, many of my opponents are multi-tabling wanna-be TAggs with HUDs beating up the fish. There are also, by-the-book table coaches. The extra action I give the donators does very much effect how they play me.
Another thing is that I noted that in full ring, most of my winning came from the HJ & CO. The recent adjustments have brought my button winnings more into line.
|
|
|
|
jmontis
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,296
|
|
I've always kept it simple, I find terrible ass players, and sit down.
ilikeaces86's quote went something like "the majority of your profit isn't from your brilliant skills, but from the ineptitude of your opponents".
I recently started playing 5-10 and expected it to be a challenge. Nope. I find exceptional games to sit down in and it's the same as playing .50-1 limit to me.
|
|
take your ego out of the equation and judge the situation dispassionately
|
|
Trikflow77
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: im so asian
Posts: 1,460
|
|
your button winnings fell into line because you adjusted your seat selection not your hand selection right? Or was it a combination of both?
|
|
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
Or was it a combination of both?
|
That's my best guess. I also started 3-betting more HJ/CO raises from players I knew were capable of comming in light.
|
|
|
|
Ltrain
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 514
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demiparadigm
The most important question to me is:
What do these numbers reflect?
Theoretically, the mean should be near the ideal...
However I adamantly believe that this is not the ideal way to play, as you are missing a lot of value.
The corollary to missed value is decreased risk.
So, I hypothesize that while these numbers represent the expected numbers for a winning player, the reason the mean is what it is, comes from the increased chance of failure with numbers closer to the "ideal"
Since my theoretical "ideal" numbers have a greater risk of ruin, a smaller percentage of players with those numbers are winners.
{Blackjack example witheld, which few would understand and less would care}
|
Very interesting view and a valid point. When compiling the stats, the underlying assumption is the stats are taken from the forum's posters (winning or not) with total hands in the range of what, 500K for 2/4 and 300K for 3/6? The typical poster we can assume will be multitabling anywhere from 2-8 tables playing by the book tight poker, and probably running 1 to 2 BB/100.
So what do the stats tell us? Play in these ranges and you too should win 1 to 2 BB/100 at these levels. I used these "average winner" stats for a while to help me fix the more obvious leaks in my game, but I have to agree that I don't think my winrate started going beyond this range until I started incorporating a more isolation, agressive playing style (not there yet, but learning  ). As a curious comparison, if you combined your three stats and a few others using the same style, what would your combined stats be (assuming it is possible with the limit variations)? It would be an interesting comparison to the classic "TAG" style.
One more interesting point on the "ideal" numbers. We can assume that part of what makes a winning player "good" is his ability to adapt to his particular game and level. If the above numbers reflect ranges around an "ideal", wouldn't the "ideal" number be the perfect example of adaptability by a "good" player? Altered by your hypothesis, the answer is no, it is the adapted "ideal" for a multitabler only catching 20% of what is going on around him, while the "ideal" for someone fully absorbing the game will be different because they will be adapting more quickly to the game.
|
|
"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. Then you are a mile away, and have his shoes." - Anon.
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
