Bison's Autorate Rules and SSH "Tight" Preflop Recommendations

[kevyk]

Bison Bison defines a good player as:

VP$IP < 20%
PFR > 5%
Total Aggression Factor > 2.00

This seems reasonable on the face of it, but a glance at the preflop recommendations in SSH reveals that Ed Miller recommends limping with roughly 2/3 of the hands he deems playable (I am referencing the 'tight games' recommendations). Thus the preflop aggression factor should be about 0.5 for a player who plays according to Ed Miller's suggestions.

An aggressive player who averages a 2.5 postflop aggression factor, but plays by the SSH rules, will just barely meet Bison Bison's criteria for proper aggression.

This suggests to me that in games where people play tightly (using the SSH definition of a tight game as one where 3-5 players see a flop per hand) preflop, but loose after the flop, the definition of a good player should be revised.

I am uncertain of how to do this; since Ed Miller says that better postflop play is the hallmark of a truly good small-stakes player, perhaps only flop, turn, and river aggression should be included in the calculation of aggressiveness? Bison's standard of VP$IP < 20% and PFR > 5% would still ensure that weak preflop players were not counted as good ones.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
....perhaps only flop, turn, and river aggression should be included in the calculation of aggressiveness?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the case already. From Bison's autorate post:

[ QUOTE ]
The stats I use are VP$IP (basically, pre-flop tightness), PFR (preflop aggression) and Total Aggression (not counting preflop, so it gives us a nice summary of postflop aggression).

[/ QUOTE ]

[sammy_g]

I suspect the SSH starting hand recommendations (even the "tight" game ones) will push your VP$IP over 20 in most small stakes games where there isn't a lot of preflop raising. So Ed wouldn't get Bison Bison's good player rating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cerril]

In extremely passive but tighter games I think 20-22% is about where you'll fall. In more aggressive games 17-20% is more about what you'd expect. I was misplaying a couple hands a bit too tightly and was seeing about 16.5, but that's creeping back up as I deal with my pocket pairs better.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the SSH starting hand recommendations (even the "tight" game ones) will push your VP$IP over 20 in most small stakes games where there isn't a lot of preflop raising. So Ed wouldn't get Bison Bison's good player rating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

SSH assumes 15-35% of pots are raised. This is a pretty passive game compared with even the lowest Party Poker limit full ring games, which have 50-60% of pots raised. Under these conditions, my VP$IP is ~16%.

[Lost Wages]

...Ed Miller recommends limping with roughly 2/3 of the hands he deems playable...Thus the preflop aggression factor should be about 0.5...

There is a flaw in this reasoning. You will be folding a lot of the limping hands if there has been a raise ahead of you. So, even though he recommends raising with 1/3 of the playable hands, you will be raising more than 1/3 of the time that you enter the pot.

Lost Wages

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Since reading SSH, my V$IP has jumped from 18% to 22%. My winrate has doubled. I do not get the highest rating in PT, but I'm happy with the $$.

PT rates me as sLA-A.

[kevyk]

Thanks for all the responses.

I must have misread Bison's original post, so thanks for pointing out that he does not advocate including preflop aggression in his "total aggression" statistic.

I also agree that a preflop aggressiveness rating of 0.5 is just a rough estimate and also probably a lower bound on what to expect when implementing the SSH preflop recommendations. I can't believe that it would be much higher, though.

As Lost Wages pointed out, the fact that there is a raise in front of you will often make you fold a calling hand. But a raise will force you to fold some raising hands, such as offsuit AJ, AQ, or KJ in late position, as well. Additionally, there are plenty of situations where a good player will limp (e.g. A2s from MP), get raised, and call one more bet. So preflop aggression for a winning "SSH" player is probably 0.5<AF<1.

A moot point, though. I'll be very interested to see how my player ratings change once I throw out the preflop aggressiveness rating.

[QuickLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
Since reading SSH, my V$IP has jumped from 18% to 22%. My winrate has doubled. I do not get the highest rating in PT, but I'm happy with the $$.

PT rates me as sLA-A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. If I sort the players by icon in the summary tab, the sLA-A players are very nearly all winners. In fact, they seem to outperform even the TA-As.

One adjustment I have made to Bison's system is to put a lower limit on the VP$IP stat. It gets rid of the uber-rocks; that's what I corrently use the bomb icon for, and they're almost all money losers.

[flair1239]

You have to watch these ratings closely. At the .5/1 and some 1/2 tables, I don't think you are being overly loose with a VPIP of 22-24%. As you get many oppurtunities from LP and the blinds to play speculative hands. As a matter of fact I would argue that at .5/1 if you are below 17%, you are probably not adjusting properly to loose conditions.

Keep in mind the bisonbison plays at 3/6 and while it may not be tight and aggressive by medium stakes standards... it is much more tight and aggressive relative to .5/1 and 1/2.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind the bisonbison plays at 3/6 and while it may not be tight and aggressive by medium stakes standards... it is much more tight and aggressive relative to .5/1 and 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also the blind structure at 3/6 forces you to play tighter in the small blind, which lowers your VP$IP as well.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
SSH assumes 15-35% of pots are raised. This is a pretty passive game compared with even the lowest Party Poker limit full ring games, which have 50-60% of pots raised. Under these conditions, my VP$IP is ~16%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I play looser than this at 15/30 where almost every pot is raised. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm not sure which limit you play. This seems like a good number for 3/6. If you play 2/4, however, I think you're passing on some profitable hands.

Edit: typo

[Mackas]

I too am rated as sLA-A and am more than happy with my win rate. At first I thought it might have been due to stats being watered down slightly by sessions from a long time ago when I was perhaps looser than now or a few 6 handed periods i've gone through. Then I checked by setting filters to cover more recent sessions and limits where I hadn't played any 6 handed tables and still sLA-A.

Just have to get used to being a loosey goosey I guess. Does that make me a fish?

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SSH assumes 15-35% of pots are raised. This is a pretty passive game compared with even the lowest Party Poker limit full ring games, which have 50-60% of pots raised. Under these conditions, my VP$IP is ~16%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I play looser than this at 15/30 where almost every pot is raised. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
So this means you don't mind it getting raised behind you if you limp w/ Axs or 55 in EP? With a LAG or 2 behind me, I'm dropping these because I don't want to play them ~3-handed for 2 SB (though I suppose w/ a LAG you would get some additional compensation when you hit a flop).

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which limit you play. This seems like a good number for 3/6. If you play 2/4, however, I think you're passing on some profitable hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm playing $1/2. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Maybe you're right and I need to loosen up. For one thing, I overestimated the amount of raising that's going on. After messing around a little w/ Access and my PT DB, it looks like about 45% of $.5/1 and 55% of $1/2 pots are raised.

Thanks to you and Milo, there may soon be yet another sLAG out there. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the SSH starting hand recommendations (even the "tight" game ones) will push your VP$IP over 20 in most small stakes games where there isn't a lot of preflop raising. So Ed wouldn't get Bison Bison's good player rating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My pre-flop play is a little looser than Miller's "tight" chart and is still only about 18%.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. If I sort the players by icon in the summary tab, the sLA-A players are very nearly all winners. In fact, they seem to outperform even the TA-As.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful with this. sLA-As might actually be TA-As who are catching a good run of cards. Hence the higher VP$IP and higher winrate.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the SSH starting hand recommendations (even the "tight" game ones) will push your VP$IP over 20 in most small stakes games where there isn't a lot of preflop raising. So Ed wouldn't get Bison Bison's good player rating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My pre-flop play is a little looser than Miller's "tight" chart and is still only about 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I don't know how much this hair needs to be split but FWIW: If ALL pots were unraised, you'd see the flop ~27% of the time by these recommendations. So VP$IP would be ~17% (dropping 10% for the BB).

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I don't know how much this hair needs to be split but FWIW: If ALL pots were unraised, you'd see the flop ~27% of the time by these recommendations. So VP$IP would be ~17% (dropping 10% for the BB).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this count the times you complete in the SB? I forget exactly what Ed recommends, and I loaned the book to a friend.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I don't know how much this hair needs to be split but FWIW: If ALL pots were unraised, you'd see the flop ~27% of the time by these recommendations. So VP$IP would be ~17% (dropping 10% for the BB).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this count the times you complete in the SB? I forget exactly what Ed recommends, and I loaned the book to a friend.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I could have gotten it wrong. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Not counting the SB, there is some info here:

zerosum's calcs (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=1060310&Foru m=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main =1055756&Search=true&where=&Name=16860&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post1060310)

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
So this means you don't mind it getting raised behind you if you limp w/ Axs or 55 in EP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I hate it, which is why I don't play these hands from EP. /images/graemlins/smile.gif In fact, I almost never open-limp at 15/30. It usually gets raised behind you after you limp, and too often you end playing a marginal hand heads-up and out of position.

Don't get my wrong. My VP$IP isn't a lot higher. It's about in the 17-18 range.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm playing $1/2. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
The Party 1/2 full? This game is actually pretty tight for the stakes. You should consider playing the 2/4 full games if you have the bankroll or the 1/2 6 max.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you're right and I need to loosen up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I just think in the 2/4 game there might be a few more hands you can play profitably since more pots are multiway and unraised. For instance, I would limp UTG with 77 or A9s at 2/4. These hands I dump in tighter, more aggressive games.

There's certinaly nothing wrong with VP$IP of 16. Maybe you are simply more disciplined than me. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

The 1/2 games are actually a bit tighter than 2/4 on Party, believe it or not. (All the maniacs play the 6 max games.)

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to you and Milo, there may soon be yet another sLAG out there. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I've turned another player into a LAG like me. My work is done here. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
My pre-flop play is a little looser than Miller's "tight" chart and is still only about 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
I stand corrected.

[jwombles]

I play 2/4 and am at 19% pre flop with a 2.5 BB won per 100. I play on Party Poker and I only have 6500 hands so far...but it feels that I'm playing right where I should be related to my win rate.

Wombles

[driller]

Unlike some of the posters, my vp$ip went down once I started following SSH guidelines. I think it is primarily due to the rarity of cold calling raises. In late position, in a loose, passive game you are calling a lot.

[Sarge85]

Someone who has the book can find it, but I'm pretty sure in one of the Poker Essays Books by Mason, he states that the best players in the world are slightly Loose Aggressive. - (That may not have been his exact words, but I don't have the book so I can't quote exactly, but the passage sticks out distinctly in my head)

I'm also sLA-A, and am quite satisified with my play.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[ZeeBee]

Hey Womble, played you tonight, and on my (500+) PT record of you, you dropped <20% VPIP.

What happened man?

ZB

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm also sLA-A, and am quite satisified with my play.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, but sometimes I dip into sLA-P. I do sometimes wonder if that's beause my tables tend to be passive so I can stay in to the river waiting for the big flush/OE straight draw to come thru...

---Leavenfish

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I do sometimes wonder if that's beause my tables tend to be passive so I can stay in to the river waiting for the big flush/OE straight draw to come thru...


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm TA-A, and I'll almost never be checking/calling when I have a big flush/OESD... you might want to read/reread Millers SSHE

[MicroBob]

All you guys who are rattling off your VPIP numbers before and/or after SSHE should also be looking at your PFR numbers.

VPIP-19 or so is a nice start for most party games (thinking 2/4 and 3/6 for the most part). But if your PFR is less than 5 then you are still hurting yourself. you should really be striving to bring your PFR up to at least 7 imo.

VPIP-18, PFR-9 is pretty good territory to be in I think....but your numbers will vary of course.

However, I do think you are REALLY hurting your EV significantly if you are at VPIP-18 but only have PFR-4 (or less).

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do sometimes wonder if that's beause my tables tend to be passive so I can stay in to the river waiting for the big flush/OE straight draw to come thru...


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm TA-A, and I'll almost never be checking/calling when I have a big flush/OESD... you might want to read/reread Millers SSHE

[/ QUOTE ]

No, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that ON the river if I don't hit those 'big flush/OE straight' draws, then I am left to check or fold. I'm not about to raise on a busted draw with nothing...so I am going to have a lot of 'non-raises' on the river that logically would tend to bring down my agression factor on the end.

---Leavenfish

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
...so I am going to have a lot of 'non-raises' on the river that logically would tend to bring down my agression factor on the end.

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding won't affect your aggression factor. Calling will.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...so I am going to have a lot of 'non-raises' on the river that logically would tend to bring down my agression factor on the end.

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding won't affect your aggression factor. Calling will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, now that would seem to makes sense. How about checking on the river when you have missed your draw and your opponent checks as well?

I'm just trying to figure out why I fluctuate 50/50 between sLA-P and sLA-A and wondering if that line I am walking is okay or if ideally sLA-A is better at this limit. Of course it's 'ok'-- I can't complain at a history of just over 5BB/100 over close to 10k hands at .50/1 since October when I started keeping track.

---Leavenfish

[pfkaok]

Yeah, as he said, checking/folding doesnt lower your AF.

I don't have much experience with the .5/1 games, but at 2-4 or 3-6 it would be much better to be sLA-A than to be sLA-P... And I have a hard time believing that passive play after the flop is optimal at any LHE game

I'm guessing that there aren't as many pots to be picked up by betting, but you probbably aren't playing your draws aggresively enough. isn't it only 1.5 AF to be sLA-A??

However, if you remain to run well then you must be doing something right

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
How about checking on the river when you have missed your draw and your opponent checks as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. PT aggression factor= (raise% + bet%)/call%

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to figure out why I fluctuate 50/50 between sLA-P and sLA-A and wondering if that line I am walking is okay or if ideally sLA-A is better at this limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're probably just on the borderline between -P and -A. However, the criteria for -A is AF >= 1.5, which is a little low anyway.

I also had trouble getting my postflop aggression up at $.5/1. But at $1/2, I'm well over 2 without really trying. I think the different game conditions account for this. I fold and bet/raise more, call less. At $.5/1 the pots are bigger (in terms of BB) and you are often forced to call with marginal hands that don't merit betting/raising with.

This makes your stats look less impressive, but they may well reflect correct play at this level. Bison plays $3/6 and probably developed his ratings with that specific game in mind.

Edit: hopefully I actually added something to what pfkoak said. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
But if your PFR is less than 5 then you are still hurting yourself. you should really be striving to bring your PFR up to at least 7 imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey MB,

If I calculated it correctly, going by the tight recommendations in SSH would get you to a pfr% of just over 7%.

[driller]

For those as slow as me: to get total aggression less preflop aggression you have to uncheck the box in the upper part of the "More Detail" screen, the one that says "Include preflop numbers in Total Aggression Factor calculation".

It took me awhile to find it, and it DOES make a difference.

[Leavenfish]

[quote ]At $.5/1 the pots are bigger (in terms of BB) and you are often forced to call with marginal hands that don't merit betting/raising with.

This makes your stats look less impressive, but they may well reflect correct play at this level. Bison plays $3/6 and probably developed his ratings with that specific game in mind.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that seems to make sense to me as well. I've been telling a friend that I can't argue with my results and that it might even be possible for -P to be even more correct that -A at this level...but that I had heard no one actually voice that possibility on this forum.

I'll probably go to $1/2 on Party over the holidays and really would not expect my stats to change much...but perhaps I'll inch more towards +50% - P and -50% - A at that point.

---Leavenfish

[Leavenfish]

Just realized I've been using LuvToDriveTT's rules, very similar to Bisons.