vpip as a ratio to % of players

[DavidC]

What I'd like to see, instead of a vpip 20% with 10 players, I'd like to see "2"

for 2x your share of the players.

i.e. if there's 4 players, and I'm in 50% of flops, I'd also like to see "2".

Please tell me if I'm wildly wrong about this, but I think it's a better way to look at that statistic.

To give you an idea, at a 2+2 table, when it went from 7 players to 6 players, someone pointed out that the table was now short-handed.

This to me seems like a very arbitrary way of looking at things... to say that you would play your full ring at 7 players and your short game at 6 players is crazy! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyways, I'm just curious if there's a way of configuring PT to do this, and curious what you guys think of the VPIP to Player % ratio idea.

--Dave.

[DavidC]

bump

[Derek in NYC]

This is an interesting idea, but Im not sure it is correct. Consider, for example, the difference between a full table of 10 players, and a HU confrontation. With the full table, we all kind of expect tight players to show a VPIP of 15% - 20%. In a HU match, I would expect that the VPIP would be around 70% against a standard, non-crazy opponent. (I'm actually mixing apples & oranges a bit here. Technically if you are in the BB HU, the SB completes, and you check, I think that does not count towards VPIP. This happens pretty often HU. But the overall point is still that you need to call many raises from the BB, and you need to raise or complete fairly often from the small blind. The point I'm trying to make is that HU requires you to play a lot of hands.)

In between full and HU, I dont think the VPIP function is linear. I think it is really a step function. 7-10 players all plays about the same to me in terms of "normal" VPIP. 6-4 players also has a pretty close range of VPIP. 3 players to me feels meaningfully different than 4 and 2 players, so I think it is a category of its own. And then of course there is HU.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting idea, but Im not sure it is correct. Consider, for example, the difference between a full table of 10 players, and a HU confrontation. With the full table, we all kind of expect tight players to show a VPIP of 15% - 20%. In a HU match, I would expect that the VPIP would be around 70% against a standard, non-crazy opponent. (I'm actually mixing apples & oranges a bit here. Technically if you are in the BB HU, the SB completes, and you check, I think that does not count towards VPIP. This happens pretty often HU. But the overall point is still that you need to call many raises from the BB, and you need to raise or complete fairly often from the small blind. The point I'm trying to make is that HU requires you to play a lot of hands.)

In between full and HU, I dont think the VPIP function is linear. I think it is really a step function. 7-10 players all plays about the same to me in terms of "normal" VPIP. 6-4 players also has a pretty close range of VPIP. 3 players to me feels meaningfully different than 4 and 2 players, so I think it is a category of its own. And then of course there is HU.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Thanks.

In fact, it makes so much sense that I won't even point out that 15:10 is kinda like 70:50. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But seriously, this response is kinda what I've been thinking about, because it doesn't make sense to play 100% of hands HU, even if the only reason you would limit yourself is to get some respect / deception.

--Dave.

Edit: Except that you thought MORE. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Again, thanks.