Printable View
Playing the guaranteeds on poker.com. Guy's stats on sharkscope show 100 games with avg stake of $15 and he's won 2000 bucks with 170% ROI and he is bragging at the table how much he wins and I tell him it is too small sample to judge by. Should these stats be considered when playing him? I think he is a donk by the way he plays but he says he is just setting ppl up.
Probably luckboxed a win or big cash at a $20/180. 100 games is way too small a sample size.
I don't know...poker.com has a lot of guaranteeds daily of 1.5k, 2k, and 3k and he says he's won them all. But he didn't play like it...he donked his chips into me 3 times on obvious occasions when i held the goods...he said after the break with 4 ppl they might as well ship the 600 to him...too bad i knocked him out! I ended up winning it for my first MTT win...not bad.
I wouldnt make a habit of believing what people say at the poker table
No I didn't listen to him...I just wondered in case this came up again....I laughed as i took him out.
100 games i would say is like 100 hours of play. If the average player puts in 150 hand an hour (2 tables average) then thats like 15K hands. Not really that much but enough to say he's not a total donk.. I agree though his oi could be from 1-2 luckbox cashes.
Randomness and probability are very elusive and hard to find in your stats. I really believe it takes over 100K hands to say your a winning player...heres a small story.
In 2005 i tagught my neighbor cory to play poker, he was a typical donk, but managed to show a a nice profit in his online career. He put 100 dollars on PS and ran it up to almost 500 in less then a month playing maby an hour a day. (NL 10 and NL25)
After watching him play i couldnt believe this guy won money, (before i helped him) so i asked for his hand historys so i could load them into my PT and review his play.
PTBB/1.55/100 22/4/.98
So i dug deeper, and started noticing some odd numbers. To make a long story shorter he was on fire for his first 4K hands!!! he had a ptbb of / 11/100 over the first 4K.
then regression to the mean..
After another 2 weeks and another few k hands he was broke.
so lesson of the day
at 4k this guy looked like doyle brunson
at 6k or so he was merly average
by 10 k he was broke.
then he got better and started playing "right"
he got a little above even and quit poker for good.
so what kind of player was he? only 15-20K hands, well never really know.
People change throughout their career in poker, stats are over rated. Even if you have 100K what to say your the smae player that you where your first 25K. Whats to say your better, i know people that definatly get worce.
So dont worry about stats and numbers as far if a player is "good" or not. Play aginst them, then decide. I think sharkscope handicaps people, they see low roi and thnk fish the see high ROI and think shark. Its just not true. People run hot, people run cold. People change their style. If you say he played like a donk, them....he's a donk.
Theres a great addage in poker that i hope you all see the relevance of.
At a table of the 10 bestplayers in the world, the 10th best player is the fish.
its all relitive
I'm a millionaire, honest.