|
DJJunkPauds
|
01-24-2008, 10:39 AM
Post subject: 40k at NL10 Stats Check-Up please.
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 301
|
|
I'm pretty sure I should be making more money here. What leaks do I have? Am I missing some info in the screen dump?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
bode
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Location: slow motion
Posts: 4,270
|
|
wait, thats bb/100 not ptbb/100, right? A little nitty for my taste but everything seems fairly solid stats-wise and the hands youve posted recently seem fine.
|
Quote:
|
eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
|
|
|
DJJunkPauds
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 301
|
|
Yeah bb, not ptbb. I'm pretty sure anyway, I don't really understand the difference, or why there needs to be one. I remember playing with something when I first installed PT, and this is what I use now.
|
|
|
|
bode
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Location: slow motion
Posts: 4,270
|
|
ptbb is just 2x the big blind and was originally used when limit hold'em was the most popular game. There is really no reason everyone still uses it other than the fact that everyone is used to it so its the most common reference when discussing winrates, etc. So when you hear people on here and 2+2 talking about winrates, they are referring to ptbb/100 which is just your winrate divided by 2. Theres a check box under the preferences tab in PT where you can select which you want to use.
|
Quote:
|
eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
|
|
|
meeloche
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,131
|
|
Those look good, similar to me. My w$wsf is a bit higher though but I think that'll improve for you when your opponents become a little tighter as you move up. Your w$SD is really good. I wonder if maybe you're folding too much on the river. Its pretty hard to tell with just stats though.
I would say there fine and I would recommend taking a shot at 25nl if you are comfortable and are rolled for it.
|
|
|
|
DJJunkPauds
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 301
|
|
The thing is, I just don't know why I'm not murdering this level. It would actually be more profitable for me to drop back down to NL5 - I was making 8.7 PTBB/100, and here I'm making 3.3. Also, for what everyone tells me is an extremely low variance level, I'm taking massive swings. At NL5 and NL2 the worse downswing I ever took was 5 buyins, but since I've been at NL10 I've frequently taken 8 buyin downswings, and as I write I'm only 3 buyins back up from a 10 buyin downswing - it simply must be my fault. I am catching beats and coolers, for sure, but not that bad. The only noticeable difference between my NL5 and NL10 stats is that at NL5 I had a flop AF of 10 ish compared to 6 ish here, and a w$wsf of 50 ish, as opposed to 40 ish here.
I could roll myself for NL25 failry quickly, but as I understand it NL10 to NL25 is the "big jump", and until I get my confidence back, and figure out why things are the way they are for me, I'm not sure I should make that leap.
Tell me I'm wrong?
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Higher vpip especially from sb, fold to steal less, steal more blinds especially from sb, win when seen flop more, go to showdown more, win at showdown less. AF looks very good, which is unusual for decent players. Your pos stats are very weird. Obviously they're very heavily influenced by variance with this sample so it's hard comment on them. However, winning too much from lp, too little from ep, and losing too much from blinds, but really that's largely just variance.
|
|
|
|
DJJunkPauds
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 301
|
|
"AF looks very good, which is unusual for decent players." is this a typo or something? Do you mean " [...] EVEN for decent players", or do you mean " [...] which is USUAL for decent...", or what? I don't quite understand your wording here.
When you say win at showdown less, you obviously don't mean I should be winning less hands, you're saying saying I should be showing down thinner right?
|
|
|
|
EzDuzIt
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Green Bay
Posts: 915
|
|
kinda looks like you fold too much but its hard to tell just looking at stats. im basing this off the aggression factors being decently high and a fairly low went to showdown. if that is the case that could make the aggression factors look more aggressive than they are.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Optimal AF is very hard to do and thus decent players rarely have it. There's a ton of room for interpretation on what are the optimal numbers (because true optimal doesn't exist), but as far as improving play goes, your AF shouldn't really change much.
And yes, you should be showing down thinner. When WtSD goes up W$SD goes down. Optimal stats as seen by excellent players have a WtSD higher and W$SD lower than yours.
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,148
|
|
I think its good to play as tight as you do at your stakes.
I think you should be beating the stakes for more as well, maybe your game selection is really bad, however idk how you can do that at 10nl. Maybe your just running bad, check pokerev.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
06-02-2012, 08:10 PM Merge Network 6.0 Looks to Retain Current Player Base
Linear Mode
