PDA

View Full Version : A study of my opponents


CarlNiclas
07-10-2004, 03:11 PM
I just made a "study" using my pokertracker db to see how different strategies are working out for people on the net. Basically, what I did was divided all players who I'd played against more than 50 hands into different catagories regarding VP$P and preflop aggression (percentage raised preflop) using the different icons present. Then I checked the totals for all the hands those in each category had played to see how they were faring in BBs/hour. All hands were played on $3-$6 limit Texas Hold'Em on Party Poker.

Disclaimer: I know that the stats below aren't statistically "correct", or that my method of selection is statistically viable (since I try to choose to play at tables with bad players) etc. Take the numbers as they are. I am not tryng to prove anything. Also, the number of hands obviously are rounded. Also, I did *not* include my own stats in this study - however, all my winnings obviously come from these players, so I cannot help but affect the results anyway).

VP$P 50%+
*********
PFR < 3% : - 3.19 BB/hr (4000 hands)
PFR 3-7% : -16.06 BB/hr (5000 hands)
PFR 7-10%: - 1.38 BB/hr (2500 hands)
PFR > 10%: - 5.67 BB/hr (1000 hands)

VP$P 25%-50%
************
PFR < 3% : - 3.18 BB/hr (12000 hands)
PFR 3-7%: + 1.44 BB/hr (11000 hands)
PFR > 7%: + 1.54 BB/hr (14000 hands)
(I had very few over 10% PFR in this category, so I decided not to calculate that specifically)

VP$P 10-25%
***********
PFR < 3% : - 0.30 BB/hr (9000 hands)
PFR 3-7% : - 0.31 BB/hr (28000 hands)
PFR >7%: + 1.75 BB/hr (20000 hands)
(I had very few over 10% PFR in this category, so I decided not to calculate that specifically)

VP$P <10%
*********
In this category I had only 4000 hands altogether, so I lumped them into one
PFR < 10% : - 1.75 BB/hr (4000 hands)


What can you tell about all this? Well, it seems to be pretty good to play a lot more loose than I am playing (18% VP$P and PFR 8% after about 30 000 hands), however, "my" stat range is doing better though, which is kind of a relief! /images/graemlins/smile.gif It is also interesting to see that only tight play doesn't seem to be the key. Aggression is a very important factor as well, as you can see that no category in the less than 3% PFR is doing well.

Again, I know that a lot of the categories have stastically insignificant number of hands in them, but it is interesting to see the trends anyway. Any comments?

tech
07-10-2004, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it seems to be pretty good to play a lot more loose than I am playing (18% VP$P and PFR 8% after about 30 000 hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

You say you aren't trying to prove anything, but you seem to imply that you ought to change your play based on these results. That doesn't make sense. If you only have 50 hands against someone, a really tight player in general could have a really high VP$IP because he happened to catch a good run of cards in that span. Most people that have VP$IP between 25% and 50% will not be winners in the long run.

CarlNiclas
07-10-2004, 03:46 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I was trying to be a bit ironic regarding the looseness. I *know* that only 50 hands probably will give a skewed result regarding a certain player.

tech
07-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's just that I have seen a ton of posts similar to this where the poster wasn't clear on it. Best of luck.

dogmeat
07-11-2004, 02:07 AM
Your percentages are very large for a sample size. If you had VP$IP for 15% to 20% (instead of taking everything from 10% to 25%)with a PFR of 6% to 8% I believe you would see a very good number of BB's won per hour.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

CarlNiclas
07-11-2004, 04:54 AM
That is the next step. It takes a while to get the info as poker tracker will only let me sort people with "less or greater than" percentages, and not "in between x% and y%". But it is a good idea, thank you.

Monty Cantsin
07-11-2004, 05:45 AM
have you seen these threads?

The EV of different playing styles (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=504807&Forum =All_Forums&Words=%2Bev%20%2Bstyles%20%2Baggressiv e%20%2Bloose%20%2Btight%20%2Bpassive&Searchpage=0& Limit=25&Main=504807&Search=true&where=bodysub&Nam e=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=2&o ldertype=m&bodyprev=#Post504807)

The EV of different playing styles - part two (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=558060&Forum =All_Forums&Words=%2Bev%20%2Bstyles%20%2Baggressiv e%20%2Bloose%20%2Btight%20%2Bpassive&Searchpage=0& Limit=25&Main=558060&Search=true&where=bodysub&Nam e=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=2&o ldertype=m&bodyprev=#Post558060)

rharless rocks.

/mc

ctv1116
07-11-2004, 09:17 AM
This has already been done.

CarlNiclas
07-11-2004, 10:32 AM
No I hadn't. Thank you!!!

CORed
07-11-2004, 01:24 PM
This is interesting, and it is consistent with my personal experience. When I started playing online poker, I was playing preflop pretty much as advised in the first edition of WLLHE, which had me raising only with big pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQ. I was playing fairly tight, and wondering why the "idiots" that raised a lot more hands preflop were beating me. After reading Abdul's preflop article, (http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html) I started raising preflop a lot more and this was the turning point between being a losing player and being a winning player.