Are these stats normal?

I just started playing limit Omaha8 and just got pokertracker, and over the last 2500 hands I have determined that I am not very good. Anyway, I am wondering (hoping?) if maybe I am running bad, too.

Are these numbers noral?

Omaha8 Performance:
Won High: 7.79% (199 out of 2,555)
Won Low: 3.01% (77 out 2,555)
Scooped 5.91% (151 out of 2,555)

Is this representative of a dry run of cards? Even if no one knows for sure, I suppose I'd like to see how winning players' corresponding numbers look.

Thanks

[Mendacious]

Two things:

1) 2500 hands is just way too small to tell anything

2) I can't imagine what anyone could tell you from just those stats. I rarely see anyone refer to them, those stats would really be affected by some of the other more relevant stats like V$PIP, WSF, WSD W$SD.

[Ribbo]

All these stats mean nothing to me because I never use them myself. I can't understand this obsession for pouring over stats and trying to say they mean one thing or another. If you're a good enough player, you will win, otherwise you will lose. I'm sure someone could take all my stats and prove that I am a losing player by breaking it down in a certain way, but that wouldn't explain the $80,000 made this year.
How about instead you work on getting some skill rather than finding out you've had some cold cards.

[mshalen]

To follow up on Ribbo's post. It isn't the number of pots you win but how much money you make at the end of the day, week, year.

I have been playing mostly pot limit and if I posted my stats people would think I was insane. I enter a huge number of pots, quickly fold if the flop doesn't help me and push hard if I catch a piece of the flop. If I see the turn (which isn't often) I win a large percentage of the time and the pots are large.

So what if you win a lot of small pots. As a lot of people have said " don't go broke trying to win a small pot". Too many people have become obsessed with statistics and are ignoring the basics. Who cares if you win 3.2% (or whatever the number is) of the times you enter a pot with AA34, you are going to play that hand anyway. What if your stats said you win 100% of the time with 58TK because the three times you were dealt this hand you played for free from the blinds and contected with some ugly flops. Would you decide to play this hand in MP with a raise in front of you?

Sorry this seems to ramble but as Mark Twain said "if I had more time this post would be shorter"

[Mendacious]

I have mixed feelings about this.

Having pokertracker Omaha and a heads-up display running I think is a tool that like any other, it depends on how you use it.

The Upside: Typically, during a session I find these tools to be helpful during session, and after.

During session, I'd say at least 50% of the value of these tools is table selection. The other 50% is the relatively infrequent, but important times that a person's stats give you some insight into a difficult situation. This is particularly helpful to multi-tablers who don't have the ability to monitor the table well enough to factor anything other than the cards, bets, and odds into these situations.
Its valuable information I promise you. Could you do just as well on a single table without it, yes, maybe even better, but as much as people move around, if you multitable, it pays for itself in a few sessions EASILY! I'd say I factor a persons stats into less than 5% of the decisions I make, but that 5% can be really big swings.

Post session, I like it because it keeps good records, and I firmly believe that you can spot leaks and weaknesses with it.

The downside:

Pretty much what Ribbo said. You can prove anything with statistics. Moreover, there is a real danger to letting statistics govern your play as opposed to developing your insight. Used incorrectly, you are essentially programming yourself to be a bot. Also, for myself, too much focus and information on how I am doing can sometimes lead to poor play. Yes it is possible to focus on the wrong things while playing without Pokertracker (like how much you are up or down-- as opposed to how you are playing) but Pokertracker can make this a compulsion. Playing for stats like trying to keep a win streak going has led to 2 of my 3 worst days. I can't blame it on Pokertracker, but having it played to my own weaknesses.

But, see above about PT0 being a tool. On balance I find it to be a profitable tool for me.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
All these stats mean nothing to me because I never use them myself. I can't understand this obsession for pouring over stats and trying to say they mean one thing or another. If you're a good enough player, you will win, otherwise you will lose. I'm sure someone could take all my stats and prove that I am a losing player by breaking it down in a certain way, but that wouldn't explain the $80,000 made this year.
How about instead you work on getting some skill rather than finding out you've had some cold cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general thrust of your post is OK, but it's absurd to write off statistical tracking software altogether. It definitely has utility.

I'm not a stats guy. I am a no limit hold-em player. I play on feel and reads. These things however, have little relevance in multi-tabling 4 tables of mid-limit Omaha8. Cmpared to what I'm used to this game is for robots. That's fine- it's nice not to have to think very much.

I don't try to mold my play to fit certain stats. I only use pokertracker as a tool to analyze my play after the fact. I am looking for leaks, poor runs of cards, great runs of cards, misplayed hands, leaks in hand selection, losing too many bets post-flop, not value betting enough, etc.

The stats are relevant. If anyone wishes to answer my question, feel free, if not, that's fine too.

[emptyshell]

Oh my, Ribbo. You said you had made 98k this year a month ago. Must have been a rough month.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure someone could take all my stats and prove that I am a losing player by breaking it down in a certain way, but that wouldn't explain the $80,000 made this year.
How about instead you work on getting some skill rather than finding out you've had some cold cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one asked how much money you make, but since you feel the need to share, allow me to share that playing NL HE I make more money than you. So don't talk to me like I'm some .50-1.00 newbie who will kiss your ass because you're the "big timer" on this forum. You got the wrong guy.

[gergery]

post other stats like VPIP, PFR, W$SD, postflop aggression by street. but 2500 still means that the most important comment you'll get is "sample size too small"

[ QUOTE ]
post other stats like VPIP, PFR, W$SD, postflop aggression by street. but 2500 still means that the most important comment you'll get is "sample size too small"

[/ QUOTE ]

VPIP: 24.62% this is probably high but this does reflect a lot of play at broken tables. Being used to playing big bet I had a tendency to play more hands at first and am just starting to curb that.

PFR: 6.18%
WSD: 64.91%
AF
PF: .28
Flop: 1.28
Turn: 1.26
River: 1.19

thanks

[Mendacious]

These are much more useful stats. If they were PL stats I would tell you your postflop aggression is kinda low. In PL I like to see at least 1.5. Other than that, they look good. I think some people would say that your Preflop aggression is too low as well for Limit. I think 25% VPIP if you play broken tables is right on the money and so is the W$SD.

Overall these are very solid numbers, but maybe a little too passive.

[Ribbo]

When I say "year" sometimes I mean 12 months, sometimes I mean since January. Sometimes I mention profit, sometimes I mention bankroll. It's easy to get confused.

[Webster]

Boy - you guys are a tough and rude crowd. Look at it from another point of view.

Here you are, learning a game and reading books. The PROBLEM is you have no idea if what you are doing is correct, thsu you revert to the ONLY thing that you have and that is numbers.

What is good, what is bad. Is winning 10% of your lows good? is it bad? You guys that have 40,000 hands know what is good and what is bad but for people that are pretty new to the game we (I) don't have a clue.

Is it a bad run of cards? is it normal?

Last night I played 24 hands of 20 or more using the Hutchinson Point count system. I won $$ on about 1/2 of them. I don't have a clue if that is good or bad. Perhaps in 50,000 hands I'll be better informed but now - it's all pretty random to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure someone could take all my stats and prove that I am a losing player by breaking it down in a certain way, but that wouldn't explain the $80,000 made this year.
How about instead you work on getting some skill rather than finding out you've had some cold cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one asked how much money you make, but since you feel the need to share, allow me to share that playing NL HE I make more money than you. So don't talk to me like I'm some .50-1.00 newbie who will kiss your ass because you're the "big timer" on this forum. You got the wrong guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You stated in your post that you "just started playing" O8, so YOU ARE A NEWBIE at that game by your own admission.

2. You asked for feedback and got it.

3. Your reference to those stats on their own are meaningless without knowing how you play (tight/loose/too weak post-flop/etc.). Even a NLHE player should know that! (I play NLHE, too, if I tell you I only won 7/180 pots this last session, can you tell me whether I played good or bad? Hint: No.)

4. Ribbo's refernce to his earnings merely pointed out that some commonly used statistical metrics are not directly correlated to winning. The 18% VP$IP player may be a big loser while the 50% guy is a huge winner, or vice versa.


Attacking those who take the time to reply to your questions will get you a lot less good advice and perspectives in the future.

Just my unsolicited opinion.

[MyTurn2Raise]

as someone who has a few hundred thousand hands tracked, your scoop% is in the top 1/4...that's good

you're W$SD% is very good--top 10%

aggression varies alot among the better players

stats seem consistent with good play

[ QUOTE ]
Attacking those who take the time to reply to your questions will get you a lot less good advice and perspectives in the future.

Just my unsolicited opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what you and I consider "good advice" are different things.