Session stats for a profitable 5 hour session

[Kips Bay Kid]

[cross posting in the short handed forum]

So would these classify as borderline maniac, or keep up the good work? Which stat in particular is going to get my ass handed to me? I normally do not play this LAG unless I have a fish (preferably two) at the table that I am trying to isolate and get HU with.

4 hours 40 minutes
432 hands (6 handed max table $2/$4)

54.4 VP$IP
25.9% win
37.2% Won $ WSF (when seeing flop)

$355 Amount won
19.0 BB/Hr
20.54 BB/100 Hands

39.5% Went To SD
55.2% Won $ at SD
28.5% PF Raise
14.4% Raise First In

[norgule]

where do you get these stats from, what do the abbreviations mean?
Pleasssssssee answer.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
where do you get these stats from, what do the abbreviations mean?
Pleasssssssee answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those abbreviations are from Pokertracker...but since this is the dumbest thread of the day (so far), let's just let it die a peaceful death.

[norgule]

Im sorry , maybe I wasnt clear in my request./ I'll restate it more clearly .
Pleasssseee only 'Mature' individuals respond to my post.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry , maybe I wasnt clear in my request./ I'll restate it more clearly .
Pleasssseee only 'Mature' individuals respond to my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...nine posts and a winning personality. I'm sure others will be bending over backwards to assist you.

P.S. My comment about the "dumbest" thread of the day referred to the original post. But I now stand corrected.

[InchoateHand]

Yeah Norgule, you tell him. By-the-way, those letters are all acronyms for "insufficient and utterly irrelevent" sample size.

[BigEndian]

Regardless of sample size, I find the two stats I look at most for a healthy session is % hands won and win% when flop seen against how much you've won or lost. But all that really can help show you is whether you are running good or not and whether you've been picking up small pots or large pots.

- Jim

[Kips Bay Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of sample size, I find the two stats I look at most for a healthy session is % hands won and win% when flop seen against how much you've won or lost. But all that really can help show you is whether you are running good or not and whether you've been picking up small pots or large pots.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

After all the bickering I finally get a worthwhile response, I realize this is better served in the short handed forum, and if you check I did get some more intelligent responses there. You cannot expect to have a good sample size with two fish at a shorthanded table - how often is that going to happen? Maybe I need to wait until I have 100k hands with two fish at a shorthanded table and then those that cry about sample size will be happy.

Jim - I have only been using PT for a few weeks now, but I am curious what do the percentages (hands won & WSP) tell you, did I just catch lucky cards for close to 5 hours or is this more indicative of my having success in isolating the fish to get HU, or not enough information? Thanks

EDIT: From what I gathered from the stats if my VP$IP was over 50% and my win % was over 25% then that is telling me that I won more then half the pots in which I put money in, is this enough to consider my play on target, or can it still mean I only won a few monster pots, which I do not believe is true.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of sample size, I find the two stats I look at most for a healthy session is % hands won and win% when flop seen against how much you've won or lost. But all that really can help show you is whether you are running good or not and whether you've been picking up small pots or large pots.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

After all the bickering I finally get a worthwhile response, I realize this is better served in the short handed forum, and if you check I did get some more intelligent responses there. You cannot expect to have a good sample size with two fish at a shorthanded table - how often is that going to happen? Maybe I need to wait until I have 100k hands with two fish at a shorthanded table and then those that cry about sample size will be happy.

Jim - I have only been using PT for a few weeks now, but I am curious what do the percentages (hands won & WSP) tell you, did I just catch lucky cards for close to 5 hours or is this more indicative of my having success in isolating the fish to get HU, or not enough information? Thanks

EDIT: From what I gathered from the stats if my VP$IP was over 50% and my win % was over 25% then that is telling me that I won more then half the pots in which I put money in, is this enough to consider my play on target, or can it still mean I only won a few monster pots, which I do not believe is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way to beat fish is not to become a fish yourself.

[bisonbison]

1. These stats are for short-handed games. You crossposted from the short-handed forum, but you didn't say why. WHY? I mean, I could crosspost my Stud questions here, but that doesn't make them relevant.

2. If these tables were consistently 6-handed, you're clearly way too loose.

3. If you don't understand why sample size is important in evaluating stats, I suggest you play 54% of all hands for the next 30,000 hands and get back to us on your results.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
After all the bickering I finally get a worthwhile response, I realize this is better served in the short handed forum, and if you check I did get some more intelligent responses there. You cannot expect to have a good sample size with two fish at a shorthanded table - how often is that going to happen? Maybe I need to wait until I have 100k hands with two fish at a shorthanded table and then those that cry about sample size will be happy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can post an intelligent question with the relevent information in the right forum.

[spamuell]

Pleasssseee only 'Mature' individuals respond to my post.

Out of all the people you could have said this to on this forum, I find it pretty funny that you aimed it at chesspain.

[sthief09]

you're pretty arrogant, and not very good... good luck with that

[Kips Bay Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
1. These stats are for short-handed games. You crossposted from the short-handed forum, but you didn't say why. WHY? I mean, I could crosspost my Stud questions here, but that doesn't make them relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Small Stakes - check (major reason it was cross posted here)
Limit - check
Hold 'em - check
Short-Handed - nope, that's why it was stated it was cross posted, I guess 3 out of 4 is no good here, perhaps if there was a "small stakes - short handed" forum I would not have cross posted.

[ QUOTE ]
2. If these tables were consistently 6-handed, you're clearly way too loose.

[/ QUOTE ]
AP was 5.1 I believe, don't have the stats in front of me, but with two fish at the table this tact seemed to work pretty well for me.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you don't understand why sample size is important in evaluating stats, I suggest you play 54% of all hands for the next 30,000 hands and get back to us on your results.

[/ QUOTE ]
With two fish at the table I certainly will, but something tells me it will take me a long time to get 30,000 hands in with one third of the participants being fish at a SH tabled.

Regardless your point is taken, I'll keep shorthanded posts in the shorthanded forum based on the feedback I am receiving in this thread.

[sthief09]

ironically, if I had notes on you, you'd be listed as a fish

[spamuell]

ironically, if I had notes on you, you'd be listed as a fish

Would I be listed as one for checking behind on the turn with a pair and a gutshot? I know you're online, reply to my post in the other thread dammit!

And it doesn't matter that you'd think this poster was a fish, this would just enable him to outplay you after the flop and take all your money. Fish. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[sthief09]

the only new thread I'm seeing is the 66 hand where you said bet the turn. please bump up the thread you're talking about if I'm not seeing it.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
ironically, if I had notes on you, you'd be listed as a fish

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would this be ironic?

[Kips Bay Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
ironically, if I had notes on you, you'd be listed as a fish

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was on the receiving end I would too, because after all what do you have to go on in order to label someone a fish with a small sample size! LOL

That was a nice side effect there were 1-2 sharks at the table at any given time that were getting pissed at my success. They started loosening up their starting hand requirements, I realized this - if they started playing aggressive I would exit the hand, more often then not they turned into calling stations trying to expose me as a "fish".

[spamuell]

the only new thread I'm seeing is the 66 hand where you said bet the turn. please bump up the thread you're talking about if I'm not seeing it.

It's the third thread in SS.

QTs...What say you? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1041530&page=0&view=expan ded&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#1041530)

[spamuell]

more often then not they turned into calling stations trying to expose me as a "fish".

This is not how "sharks" play poker. You need to understand that there are subtler distictions between playing styles than "shark" and "fish".

[sthief09]

I guess it's not really ironic for one fish to call everyone else a fish in poker, since it's so common and it makes sense, but on the surface, it seems ironic to me.

[Kips Bay Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
more often then not they turned into calling stations trying to expose me as a "fish".

This is not how "sharks" play poker. You need to understand that there are subtler distictions between playing styles than "shark" and "fish".

[/ QUOTE ]
What are your definitions of the two?

From riveredagain.com:

Fish
A poor poker player, relative to their competition.
<font color="red">I raised preflop in hopes of isolating the fish to my right.</font>

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]

From riveredagain.com:

Fish
A poor poker player, relative to their competition.
<font color="red">I raised preflop in hopes of isolating the fish to my right.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

From dictionary.com:

Dolt
A stupid person; a dunce.
<font color="red"> I raised preflop in hopes of isolating the dolt to my right. </font>

Does the word "dolt" indicate their playing style in terms of their looseness or tightness? Does it refer to their aggression, or passivity? How about their mendacity, their willingness to bluff? Is it complimentary? Should we be referring to other people in such a way? The word "fish" reveals much more about the person who uses the word than it does about the one who is being described as a "fish".

[Kips Bay Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

From riveredagain.com:

Fish
A poor poker player, relative to their competition.
<font color="red">I raised preflop in hopes of isolating the fish to my right.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

From dictionary.com:

Dolt
A stupid person; a dunce.
<font color="red"> I raised preflop in hopes of isolating the dolt to my right. </font>

Does the word "dolt" indicate their playing style in terms of their looseness or tightness? Does it refer to their aggression, or passivity? How about their mendacity, their willingness to bluff? Is it complimentary? Should we be referring to other people in such a way? The word "fish" reveals much more about the person who uses the word than it does about the one who is being described as a "fish".

[/ QUOTE ]
Now that was a personal jab if I ever saw one and pretty weak if you ask me, what provoked that?

So you do not describe weaker players as fish and stronger players as sharks?

[EDIT] Maybe you need more vital statistics to backup why I would label someone a fish, would your disposition be any different if I had told you the fish at the table had a VP$IP &gt; 80 and went to SD &lt; 35% of the time?

[spamuell]

Now that was a personal jab if I ever saw one and pretty weak if you ask me, what provoked that?

It was not a personal jab. I was just demonstrating that the word "dolt" is about as descriptive as the word "fish".


So you do not describe weaker players as fish and stronger players as sharks?

Maybe "sharks" in a game where the winning style is clear so the term is pretty specific, but still probably not. I wouldn't use the term fish because it's offensive and it doesn't even begin to classify your opponent's style. There are lots of ways to lose.