Blarg
07-23-2004, 01:36 AM
I was looking through my database of $1/2 games on Partypoker to see if some of my stats on other players in general have changed much since I last really looked them over. I've been wondering if Ed Miller's book is going to change the game much, so I thought I'd take a look at what I already have. I usually like seeing other people's numbers, too, so I thought I'd share mine. Please feel free to share yours!
In my 20,606 hands of $1/2, I've collected info on 3,695 players. Here is how I used somebody else's ideas to classify them into types. First I'll go through the numbers for people I've got over 100 hands on.
Criteria are what I got from two posts here on 2+2:
[ QUOTE ]
LAG: >30 vp$ip >10 pfr
TAG: <25 vp$ip >6 pfr
LP: >30 vp$ip <6 pfr
TP: <25 vp$ip <6 pfr
[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
That is pretty much what I do as well, however, I also tag everybody with more than 50% vp$ip as a Fish, and if the same person also raises preflop >15% he or she gets the Maniac icon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus I decided to see if I could classify anyone as incredible rocks. Gor only four, looking for a VPIP less than or equal to 10 and PRF less than or equal to 5.
I have over 100 hands on 398 people, who I've seen play 1,183 sessions and 88,222 hands.
For them, the tight-passives are 53.33% winners at 1.03 BB/100, the loose-passives are 50.82% winners at 1.47 BB/100, the tight-aggressives are 58.21% winners at 2.02 BB/100, and the loose aggressives come out way ahead in the lead at 66.67% winners at 3.25 BB/100.
I have four rocks at exactly 50% winners with a 3.08 BB/100 win rate, and then we finally come to the losers.
54 fish are 37.04% winners with an average loss of 4.09 BB/100. Seven maniacs are 57.14% winners with an average loss of 4.83 BB/100.
These 398 unique players who I have collected over 100 hands on have the following stats when looked at as a whole. Their numbers are 51.76% winners at 0.91 BB/100. Their average VP$IP is 26.49 and their PFP comes to 5.01. Their W$SD(percent of the the time they won when going to the showdown) was 51.30.
Some interesting things I noticed: almost everyone's a winner! How could that be? Practice makes perfect? Somebody's got to be losing somewhere for almost all of my sample size to be winning. They must be digging it out of the rest of my database of players!
The other thing I noticed is that the aggressive players are getting dramatically more money than the passive ones, and contrary to what books and poker players say, it's the loose aggressives who are the most dramatically ahead of all. They beat the win rate of the tight-aggressives by more than half, and far more of them are winners. Tight passive players fare particularly poorly in all regards.
For all 20,606 players, I show a total of 5043 sessions; 190,166 hands played; a win rate of 39.54% for negative 3.20 BB/100, VP$IP of 31.92, PFR of 5.22, and a W$SD of 46.91.
Comparing the entire total of players to those who I have down for 100 hands or more, there are some interesting differences.
The 100+'s have a VP$IP of 26.49% (and that includes 54 fish with an average VP$IP of 37.04%) compared to the broader sample size's 31.92%. It looks like a smaller VP$IP is a notable measure of success.
The PFR% of the 100+'s compared to the broader sample size is 5.01 versus 5.22. This doesnt seem to indicate that raising more preflop is necessarily helping; the group with a far greater percentage of winning players is raising less, and besides, the numbers are very close. However, there is a huge difference in the win rates and percentage of winners between the 100+'s and the rest -- roughly 52% for 1 BB/hr versus 39% for negative 3.2 BB/hr.
So it looks like being a more frequent preflop raiser can help distinguish good players from much better players, but among the factors that make up a winning game, being a frequent preflop raiser is actually a minor one. It won't come even close to making a loser player a winner. Obviously, it undoubtedly matters what you're raising with, and when, and against whom. Yet it seems clear that PFR% numbers do distinguish levels of play and profitability, and that they point toward the value of controlled aggression.
Simple experience is also a likely factor, but I don't know how big a factor merely from these numbers. There is no way of knowing how much experience people in the broader sample size above have, but the narrower group is by definition comprised of people who I have recorded playing more. Yet people can play a lot of bad poker as well as a lot of good poker.
It will be interesting to get more experience playing, and digging into Pokertracker, to see what else the program can show and how it can help. I'd be interested to see what kind of figures others have collected, as well as how much they match or differ from mine. And it would be especially interesting to see how others evaluate their stats.
In my 20,606 hands of $1/2, I've collected info on 3,695 players. Here is how I used somebody else's ideas to classify them into types. First I'll go through the numbers for people I've got over 100 hands on.
Criteria are what I got from two posts here on 2+2:
[ QUOTE ]
LAG: >30 vp$ip >10 pfr
TAG: <25 vp$ip >6 pfr
LP: >30 vp$ip <6 pfr
TP: <25 vp$ip <6 pfr
[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
That is pretty much what I do as well, however, I also tag everybody with more than 50% vp$ip as a Fish, and if the same person also raises preflop >15% he or she gets the Maniac icon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus I decided to see if I could classify anyone as incredible rocks. Gor only four, looking for a VPIP less than or equal to 10 and PRF less than or equal to 5.
I have over 100 hands on 398 people, who I've seen play 1,183 sessions and 88,222 hands.
For them, the tight-passives are 53.33% winners at 1.03 BB/100, the loose-passives are 50.82% winners at 1.47 BB/100, the tight-aggressives are 58.21% winners at 2.02 BB/100, and the loose aggressives come out way ahead in the lead at 66.67% winners at 3.25 BB/100.
I have four rocks at exactly 50% winners with a 3.08 BB/100 win rate, and then we finally come to the losers.
54 fish are 37.04% winners with an average loss of 4.09 BB/100. Seven maniacs are 57.14% winners with an average loss of 4.83 BB/100.
These 398 unique players who I have collected over 100 hands on have the following stats when looked at as a whole. Their numbers are 51.76% winners at 0.91 BB/100. Their average VP$IP is 26.49 and their PFP comes to 5.01. Their W$SD(percent of the the time they won when going to the showdown) was 51.30.
Some interesting things I noticed: almost everyone's a winner! How could that be? Practice makes perfect? Somebody's got to be losing somewhere for almost all of my sample size to be winning. They must be digging it out of the rest of my database of players!
The other thing I noticed is that the aggressive players are getting dramatically more money than the passive ones, and contrary to what books and poker players say, it's the loose aggressives who are the most dramatically ahead of all. They beat the win rate of the tight-aggressives by more than half, and far more of them are winners. Tight passive players fare particularly poorly in all regards.
For all 20,606 players, I show a total of 5043 sessions; 190,166 hands played; a win rate of 39.54% for negative 3.20 BB/100, VP$IP of 31.92, PFR of 5.22, and a W$SD of 46.91.
Comparing the entire total of players to those who I have down for 100 hands or more, there are some interesting differences.
The 100+'s have a VP$IP of 26.49% (and that includes 54 fish with an average VP$IP of 37.04%) compared to the broader sample size's 31.92%. It looks like a smaller VP$IP is a notable measure of success.
The PFR% of the 100+'s compared to the broader sample size is 5.01 versus 5.22. This doesnt seem to indicate that raising more preflop is necessarily helping; the group with a far greater percentage of winning players is raising less, and besides, the numbers are very close. However, there is a huge difference in the win rates and percentage of winners between the 100+'s and the rest -- roughly 52% for 1 BB/hr versus 39% for negative 3.2 BB/hr.
So it looks like being a more frequent preflop raiser can help distinguish good players from much better players, but among the factors that make up a winning game, being a frequent preflop raiser is actually a minor one. It won't come even close to making a loser player a winner. Obviously, it undoubtedly matters what you're raising with, and when, and against whom. Yet it seems clear that PFR% numbers do distinguish levels of play and profitability, and that they point toward the value of controlled aggression.
Simple experience is also a likely factor, but I don't know how big a factor merely from these numbers. There is no way of knowing how much experience people in the broader sample size above have, but the narrower group is by definition comprised of people who I have recorded playing more. Yet people can play a lot of bad poker as well as a lot of good poker.
It will be interesting to get more experience playing, and digging into Pokertracker, to see what else the program can show and how it can help. I'd be interested to see what kind of figures others have collected, as well as how much they match or differ from mine. And it would be especially interesting to see how others evaluate their stats.