Latest database with 416,000 hands -- BB/100 leaders

[Mizzles]

These are the guys with the biggest bb/100 over the last 1.5 months or so, in my latest database (total 416,000 hands), filtered for a minimum of 5000 hands

(PARTY 15/30)

PCWahoo - 5.89
Phoenixryder - 5.02
LiverChop - 4.83
Gorasa - 4.14
Gambleupnino - 3.25
Ultimatetilt - 2.78
Icry4allofu - 2.17
Poker_Ho420 - 2.07
PAKC3522 - 1.66


Looking at combined 2 databases with ~1 million hands, the same players:


PCWahoo TOT HANDS: 9,256, BB/100: 4.11 VP$IP: 19.3, PFR: 10.6
Phoenixryder TOT HANDS: 15,061, BB/100: 3.25 VP$IP: 19.8, PFR: 6.7
LiverChop TOT HANDS: 18,314, BB/100: 3.46 VP$IP: 21.2, PFR: 9.5
Gorasa TOT HANDS: 11,558, BB/100: 2.33 VP$IP: 20.0, PFR: 10.7
Gambleupnino TOT HANDS: 17,997, BB/100: 2.38 VP$IP: 25.1, PFR: 6.5
Ultimatetilt TOT HANDS: 7,416, BB/100: 3.27 VP$IP: 26.8, PFR: 10.1
Icry4allofu TOT HANDS: 7,632, BB/100: 1.47 VP$IP: 25.8, PFR: 11.1
Poker_Ho420 TOT HANDS: 6,628, BB/100: 1.98 VP$IP: 20.8, PFR: 12.3
PAKC3522 TOT HANDS: 7,781, BB/100: 1.79 VP$IP: 18.8, PFR: 7.7

AVERAGE VPIP/PFR OF THESE GUYS : 21.95 / 9.47

Maybe it's time to study these players to improve my play.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker_Ho420 - 2.07

[/ QUOTE ]

meh

[anuj]

Icry4allofu or whatever is coming up as not registered. Is that spelled correctly.

[droidboy]

Do you have anyone with a significant number of hands? Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise. You'll only start to get truly stable win rates after 100K hands or so.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[mike l.]

"Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise"

i have 6,000 hands since i started playing online regularly last week. so is that completely random at this point? how off could it be? do i really need to wait until 50k to be close to knowing what my win rate is? or can i be within say .3 bbs by the time im at 25,000 hands?

thanks, mike

[Michael Davis]

"or can i be within say .3 bbs by the time im at 25,000 hands?"

Andrew will give you the exact answer I'm sure, but since El Diablo and others have reported breakeven streaks of over 30K hands, the answer is definitely no.

-Michael

[mike l.]

"since El Diablo and others have reported breakeven streaks of over 30K hands,"

but theyre nowhere near as good as me.

seriously though 30,000?? break fuucking even for 30k hands?? is the whole freaking world just conspiring to make me quit hold em all together forever or what is this?

[Michael Davis]

No because 30K hands is like a week and a half or less. Big deal.

-Michael

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anyone with a significant number of hands? Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise. You'll only start to get truly stable win rates after 100K hands or so.

- Andrew

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... how exactly do you deduce that 10k hands can tell you anything definate about these WRs?

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anyone with a significant number of hands? Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise. You'll only start to get truly stable win rates after 100K hands or so.

- Andrew

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly... FWIW, i was at almost 4 BB/100 for my first 10k hands in this game... my last 5k I've run at 4.3 , and in between i had around 20k where i was just over .5

Needless to say taking different 10k stretches of my hands, i could either be a breakeven (or slightly losing) player, or the best player on Party. The long run is LLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG!!!!!

[Peter_rus]

PcWahoo is in top of my list of players who won from me the most money. He makes moves extremely often against right players.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
i have 6,000 hands since i started playing online regularly last week. so is that completely random at this point? how off could it be?

[/ QUOTE ]


Mike, (or, rather, mike) statistically speaking, people are correct in wanting larger sample sizes -- however, I think this whole desire oftentimes lends itself to the notion that anything prior to that large sample size of indefinite proportion is somehow irrelevant. While someone making claims from a sample size of, say, 20,000 is going to have less grounding than the guy with 1,000,000, it is still a large enough grouping to examine AND to see, at the very least, where one is going.

I didn't play online almost ever until a month ago, and while I have a great winrate thusfar, I realize it doesn't prove as concretely as someone with my winrate over the last year, but it STILL is far better than just Random Guy doing randomly well on random day.

In short: don't sweat the sample size police, they shall never be satiated.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[TaintedRogue]

Your database must be flawed, or it would have the infamous "NotTrump" in there.

[TStoneMBD]

i dont think mikel is really all that concerned about calculating his true win rate. i think he had a big bankroll drop from bad cards, and is pissed off that he cant sidestep variance even after 30k hands.

i dont blame him.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
PCWahoo - 5.89

[/ QUOTE ]

I rule.

[mike l.]

nah. i have like 6000 hands since i started playing again and im happy so far, but i want to know how small a drop in the bucket that is. so im basically gunning to get to 100k hands like asap and then ill sit back and have a beer and repeat the number of bbs/100 like a million times and either smile smugly or cry increduously.

[TStoneMBD]

yah but the real question is, what type of beer?

[astroglide]

you are not remotely close to having a sufficient sample size, but even if you did making posts like this is horrifically lame. keep it to yourself when you decide to look up fish or pros.

[mike l.]

"what type of beer?"

ginger beer.

[sublime]

but theyre nowhere near as good as me.

dad?

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PCWahoo - 5.89

[/ QUOTE ]

I rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you because if so I have to admit you do rule.

PCWahoo~{{DESC: sLA-A TOT HANDS: 5,155 VP$IP: 20 - PFR: 11 - BB/100: 6 RAISE WITH: KK(19) AKo(19) AJo(17) AA(16) TT(15) AQo(15) JJ(13) QQ(13) FSB: 85 - FBB: 56 - ASB: 36 WR/100: $179 - CR: 3 - CCPF: 0 WSD: 31 - W$SD: 60 AF-TOT: 2.6 - AF-F: 2.4 - AF-T: 3.4 - AF-R: 2.4 FRB: 39 - FBB-HU: 51}}>

[addickt]

PCWAHOO is not a good player.. You are his lucky charm it looks like

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
PCWAHOO is not a good player.. You are his lucky charm it looks like

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't rule.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
nah. i have like 6000 hands since i started playing again and im happy so far, but i want to know how small a drop in the bucket that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played 6,000 hands in one day multiple times. Many people who have posted in this thread could probably say the same.

Unless you realize you suck and your WR is exceptionally low, I wouldn't even blink before 50,000 hands.

Also, the posts you see here about bb/100 should be taken with a grain of salt, because you are more likely to post your WR if you've got a high one, than opposed to something like 1.2bb/100

[TheBusiness]

[ QUOTE ]
"Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise"

i have 6,000 hands since i started playing online regularly last week. so is that completely random at this point? how off could it be? do i really need to wait until 50k to be close to knowing what my win rate is? or can i be within say .3 bbs by the time im at 25,000 hands?

thanks, mike

[/ QUOTE ]

I will say that the sample sizes are very small and do not mean a whole lot. For example, the first 150K hands I played online won me a lot of money and a good win rate, but in the last 20K hands I have played, I am a substantial loser. I don't feel as though my stats over the last 20K hands are truly indicative of my abilities as a poker player, but nonetheless 20K hands is nothing to scoff at. So all I am saying is that 5K or 10K hands on these "best" online players does not prove much. Now I am not saying they are bad players, I think most of them (with a few exceptions on that list) are good players, but 5K hands proves almost nothing.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]


I will say that the sample sizes are very small and do not mean a whole lot. For example, the first 150K hands I played online won me a lot of money and a good win rate, but in the last 20K hands I have played, I am a substantial loser. I don't feel as though my stats over the last 20K hands are truly indicative of my abilities as a poker player, but nonetheless 20K hands is nothing to scoff at. So all I am saying is that 5K or 10K hands on these "best" online players does not prove much. Now I am not saying they are bad players, I think most of them (with a few exceptions on that list) are good players, but 5K hands proves almost nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if you stopped berating the bad players and scaring them away you could make more money.
-James

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
you are not remotely close to having a sufficient sample size, but even if you did making posts like this is horrifically lame. keep it to yourself when you decide to look up fish or pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't see what's "horrifically lame" about this post.

[theBruiser500]

as far as sample size goes i think 6k hands will tell you something. imo 5k, 10k, 20k hands will give you useful information. not definitive (although i think 20k hands for nl is very indicative) but it is useful.

[TheBusiness]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I will say that the sample sizes are very small and do not mean a whole lot. For example, the first 150K hands I played online won me a lot of money and a good win rate, but in the last 20K hands I have played, I am a substantial loser. I don't feel as though my stats over the last 20K hands are truly indicative of my abilities as a poker player, but nonetheless 20K hands is nothing to scoff at. So all I am saying is that 5K or 10K hands on these "best" online players does not prove much. Now I am not saying they are bad players, I think most of them (with a few exceptions on that list) are good players, but 5K hands proves almost nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if you stopped berating the bad players and scaring them away you could make more money.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

That has not been the problem. Bad players abound. The problem is that too many of them have been hitting gutshot straights against my sets in the last month.

[AviD]

?

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I will say that the sample sizes are very small and do not mean a whole lot. For example, the first 150K hands I played online won me a lot of money and a good win rate, but in the last 20K hands I have played, I am a substantial loser. I don't feel as though my stats over the last 20K hands are truly indicative of my abilities as a poker player, but nonetheless 20K hands is nothing to scoff at. So all I am saying is that 5K or 10K hands on these "best" online players does not prove much. Now I am not saying they are bad players, I think most of them (with a few exceptions on that list) are good players, but 5K hands proves almost nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if you stopped berating the bad players and scaring them away you could make more money.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

That has not been the problem. Bad players abound. The problem is that too many of them have been hitting gutshot straights against my sets in the last month.

[/ QUOTE ]


If this is the case, I'm sure more berating will put an end to the problem.

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
No because 30K hands is like a week and a half or less. Big deal

[/ QUOTE ]

May i ask how many hours a day and how many tables?

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, I'm sure more berating will put an end to the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, fish drawing to gutshots is probably a leak that is crucial to fix.

[tolbiny]

"Also, the posts you see here about bb/100 should be taken with a grain of salt, because you are more likely to post your WR if you've got a high one, than opposed to something like 1.2bb/100"

If i ever get up to a 1.2 bb/100 i will be posting the hell out of it.

I can dream can't i?

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, I'm sure more berating will put an end to the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, fish drawing to gutshots is probably a leak that is crucial to fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, you misunderstood. Fish drawing to gutshots isn't his leak, it's fish hitting their gutshots.

There's no excuse for berating fish, period. Everyone probably slips once at some point but habitually yelling at poor players is bad poker, bad manners and bad for your winrate.

SpaceAce

[Philuva]

Seriously dude, you have to stop with the table talk. The other day I was playing with you and you were discussing the strategy of betting into an opponent without an A on an A high board. Do you really think that is good for the game to discuss your thought process while at the poker table?

[IndieMatty]

Check it again! I won like 200BB's this weekend.

Seriously these posts are a tad weak. To each his own though.

[dcarlc]

I think all you really need to know about PP is that when it's preflop 3bet 5 way action, You have AK spades and flop comes QJ2, 3 spades turn 7, river 4, and you win a $400 pot and someone pays you off with 2 red 9's. I think that by 5000, 10,000, or 100,000 hands, any honest person can tell were they are at in the pecking order. The stats are nice but I'm pretty sure MIKE doesn't need 100,000 hands to figure out if he can beat the game.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Until you're at 50K, it's all just noise"

i have 6,000 hands since i started playing online regularly last week. so is that completely random at this point? how off could it be? do i really need to wait until 50k to be close to knowing what my win rate is? or can i be within say .3 bbs by the time im at 25,000 hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

I find it helps to play with the numbers.

Take your standard deviation (SD/100) and divide by the square root of the number of 100 hand blocks you've played.

For example, if you played 6000 hands, and your SD/100 is 15:

15/sqrt(60) = 1.9

68% of the time your win rate will be +/- this amount.
95% of the time your win rate will be +/- twice this amount.

15/sqrt(250) = 0.95 (so no, you won't be confidently within .3 BB/100 here)

15/sqrt(500) = 0.67 (even after 50000 hands you can easily be off by a full BB/100)

[Turning Stone Pro]

has had all he can eat?

Sorry, just trying to answer your 'location' question. My favorite Simpsons episode.

TSP

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
has had all he can eat?

Sorry, just trying to answer your 'location' question. My favorite Simpsons episode.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah, nice, but click my name to see the rest. It's a Rounders quote I modified slightly with the help of Ellix Powers.

Edit: Inspired by this hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1460077&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1).

[Turning Stone Pro]

Oh yeah, another great quote.

"Oh, Jacks are a monster compared to what you play, Morris"

"Ah, f**k you . . ."

"F**k me? F**k you . . ."

The Simpsons episode I referred to is where atty Lionel Hutz is representing Homer in the lawsuit against the all-you-can -eat seafood buffet for tossing him out before he had "all he could eat".

TSP

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
as far as sample size goes i think 6k hands will tell you something. imo 5k, 10k, 20k hands will give you useful information. not definitive (although i think 20k hands for nl is very indicative) but it is useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, 10 hands gives you useful information, it just isn't terribly accurate information. The truth is, we are trying to control or understand data that is inherently untamable. This data will always fluctuate based on a number of factors. Just think, every player you play against is unique, everyday more people come in, but more fish also go belly up. If you play at 4pm you are in a different fish pond (playing against a different pool of players) than if you play at 6pm. A player of your caliber could/should win X in December when players are holding back $ for little Johnny's Xmas presents, but will win Y in July after taxes have been paid and people are feeling good. On Sunday, a player should win X, but on Tuesday, there are more pros, less fish, so you should only win Y. Point is, EVERY SINGLE DAY is unique for so many reasons. Each player should have a win rate specific to that day (though independant of actual outcome). We are trying to put order to a chaotic event - very hard to do, and, in fact, because the reps are so different, an truly accurate model cannot be made.

Trying to graph what your win rate should be on a given day is like graphing the price of a stock. Constant flucuations, at 3pm it may be at 45.5 but at the closing bell, it can finsih at 47. What has changed in those 2 hours?

My point? Quit trying to control or define your winrate. True you can work to improve it, but you'll never be a 2BB/100 player, because it simply can't be defined like that. Too many variables and the player himself, though he is the most important variable, is still just a variable.

CSC

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
or can i be within say .3 bbs by the time im at 25,000 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be if your Standard Deviation was freakishly low, but basically no.

If you want to find out this info, go to the probability secition.