PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone link me....

hemstock
10-02-2005, 12:18 PM
...to the thread in which everyone posted their best hands in terms of BB/hand? Search function is useless.
hemstock
10-02-2005, 03:41 PM
Is there anyone at least who posted in that thread so I can search for it?
MrWookie47
10-02-2005, 03:52 PM
I posted in it. Most everyone did. Is there a reason you're looking for it in particular?
hemstock
10-02-2005, 04:02 PM
Thank you.
Yes I wanna see what peoples averages are with big pocket pairs because I'm kinda struggling with them.
_Kevin_
10-02-2005, 04:22 PM
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3359952&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1)
Paxosmotic
10-02-2005, 04:32 PM
Hems -

Low pocket pairs are some of the easiest hands to play. Set it or quit it. Very easy stuff. Just avoid the temptation to peel one off on a KJ7 flop with 44 and you'll be in the green with every pair.
hemstock
10-02-2005, 04:35 PM
Nah it's the big pocket pairs I have problems with.
50 hands with Queens -0.14 bb/hand !
JJ just .40
Redd
10-02-2005, 04:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Nah it's the big pocket pairs I have problems with.
50 hands with Queens -0.14 bb/hand !
JJ just .40

[/ QUOTE ]

How big is your sample size?
MrWookie47
10-02-2005, 05:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nah it's the big pocket pairs I have problems with.
50 hands with Queens -0.14 bb/hand !
JJ just .40

[/ QUOTE ]

How big is your sample size?

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine. Your sample size is much too small to even begin to think about win rates for individual hands. You need tens or hundreds of thousands of hands of QQ for it to be remotely converged.
10-02-2005, 05:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nah it's the big pocket pairs I have problems with.
50 hands with Queens -0.14 bb/hand !
JJ just .40

[/ QUOTE ]

How big is your sample size?

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine. Your sample size is much too small to even begin to think about win rates for individual hands. You need tens or hundreds of thousands of hands of QQ for it to be remotely converged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? That's daunting. I'm not very learned in statistics, and will defer to those who are, but always thought that while you need a minimum of 30 samples in most areas to be statistically significant, 100 samples would usually do. But, ten or hundreds of thousands??? Wow.
MrWookie47
10-02-2005, 05:57 PM
Actually, my estimate was a little large. I estimated that the rate of convergence for the win rate of a particular hand would be on the same order as your true win rate. That, upon further review, is quite wrong. However, you still need a helluva sample. Think about the standard deviation. You're looking at a standard deviation per hand of about 5 BB (pure ballpark estimate, since PT doesn't list this data). To get convergence on your win rate to within a tenth of a BB, you need about a 2.5k sample of any given hand.
detruncate
10-02-2005, 07:09 PM
Hi there. I dug this out of my journal:

i took at look at my KK stats when i was thinking about responding to a post by someone who wasn't winning as often as he expected to with high PPs and discovered an interesting thing:

over the last 9,749 hands i've been dealt KK 41 times

it has won 41% of the time, costing me .32 BB/hand for a net -13 BB

over the previous 215 times, it won 68% and made me 2.23 BB/100

the difference is almost exactly the amount i'm down over the 9,749 hands in question

I remember going through this, and while I certainly wasn't playing perfect poker by any means, it's not like I totally forgot how to play KK all of a sudden.