Can someone please help explain these weird stats?

I'm mostly playing $2/$4 limit at Party Poker, and have accumulated some seemingly unusual stats about player types.

Everyone says the best method of play, wherever you are, is tight/aggressive yeah?

So I'm looking at the stats of BB/100, filtering by player type, and just looking at the avg. of all the players and their hands put together.

It turns out all players with a passive postflop are significantly losing players, and most aggressive postflop players are winners, no surprise there.

However, looking at the aggressive postflop players, the tight players have a very small BB/100 rate compared to the looser players. For example, the tight/aggr./aggr. players are at about 1.25BB/100 avg and the semi-loose(25%-40%VP$IP)/aggr./aggr. players are at a whopping 6.7BB/100. The loose/aggr./aggr. players are at about 5BB/100. Even the loose players that aren't aggressive preflop, but are postflop are doing quite well comparitively.

I really don't get why this is if everyone says tight is the best?

Personally I'm marked as tight/passive(~6%PFR)/aggressive, and these players avg. .82BB/100, which is about right for me.

Can anyone explain this? (And no it's not a small sample size)

[newhizzle]

its because you probably have a very small sample size on some of these players and they have been on a lucky streak, loose players are rarely long-term winners, the more aggressive ones may play well post-flop, but if they are seeing way to many flops their postflop play will not make up for it.

also loose players will have larger standard deviations, and therefore larger swings, upward and downward, this would explain a higher winrate than a tight aggressive player over a small number of hands

is it all of the loose players or just some of the loose players?

edit: how big is the sample size on each player?

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mostly playing $2/$4 limit at Party Poker, and have accumulated some seemingly unusual stats about player types.

Everyone says the best method of play, wherever you are, is tight/aggressive yeah?

So I'm looking at the stats of BB/100, filtering by player type, and just looking at the avg. of all the players and their hands put together.

It turns out all players with a passive postflop are significantly losing players, and most aggressive postflop players are winners, no surprise there.

However, looking at the aggressive postflop players, the tight players have a very small BB/100 rate compared to the looser players. For example, the tight/aggr./aggr. players are at about 1.25BB/100 avg and the semi-loose(25%-40%VP$IP)/aggr./aggr. players are at a whopping 6.7BB/100. The loose/aggr./aggr. players are at about 5BB/100. Even the loose players that aren't aggressive preflop, but are postflop are doing quite well comparitively.

I really don't get why this is if everyone says tight is the best?

Personally I'm marked as tight/passive(~6%PFR)/aggressive, and these players avg. .82BB/100, which is about right for me.

Can anyone explain this? (And no it's not a small sample size)

[/ QUOTE ]


Fish on a hot streak. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Hm...
Sample sizes range from 30 - a couple hundred hands / player, and 10K to 80K hands / player type. However, if you add a couple 100 players together in any given player type, shouldn't that kind of even out everyone's "luck" (some may get lucky, but the majority will show their true result, and some will even get significantly unlucky). Or is this reasoning not really correct?

[newhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Hm...
Sample sizes range from 30 - a couple hundred hands / player. However, if you add about 100 players together, shouldn't that kind of even out everyone's "luck" (some may get lucky, but the majority will show their true result, and some will even get significantly unlucky). Or is this reasoning not really correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

you would think it would, im not really sure, but i know a winrate generally means nothing before like 50,000 hands

Issues I can see:

Your categories are too broad. You're probably mixing the rocks (below 15% VPIP) in with the tight players, and you're definitely mixing in some of the loosies (low-30s VPIP and up) with the semi-loosies (which IMO should be ~20-30%). A good, tight player will in general be about 15-19% VPIP.

Your play and table selection is also a factor: if you're playing badly or choosing tables where others are playing badly, their (or your) chips will often bleed off to people who didn't necessarily deserve them, but happened to be in the right place at the right time. Those same players may later hit a table that isn't so favorable (one that you, as a thinking player, would not play at) and lose it all back.

And yes, your sample sizes are small. If you could track the same semi-loosies for 30000 hands, that would be much closer to meaningful.

So no one thinks it's possible that semi-loose, loost/aggressive could be better than tight/aggressive in low limit hold em? That's basically my question. Not that I would ever want to play looser...I'm about 15% VP$IP, but it just really weirds me out how the difference is so drastic.

[newhizzle]

it is possible for a semiloose with superior postflop skills to do better than a TAG with inferior skills, but he would do even better if he saw less hands, and no-one makes 6 BB/100