a good statistic to use to evaluate a session.

[thedudeoflife]

I like to look at the win % if flops seen statistic especially when compared with the flops seen %. I think that a long run successful player will see less than 20% of flops, which i almost always have in sessions over 100 hands. The problem is that you can really get killed if your win if flop % stat is low. For example i played a session of 200 hands of 3/6. My see flop % was 21% but my win if flop seen was 15 %. you can guess what my p/l was. (not good). anyway what was happening was that when I was getting dealt bettable or raisable hands I was playing them aggressively.I was either not hitting the flop at all or even worse a piece of it, which coerces me to put more bets in for the turn and or river..Not winning these is just quicksand. Is this indicative of a flaw in my game or just one of the cyclical things that happens over the course of 100,000's of hands?

[Solitare]

I think win % of flops seen is the best indicator of the luck factor in a session. I've kept stats on my see flop %, win % of flops, profit/loss from session etc for the last 20+ sessions. I did a regression analysis on my win % of flops seen and profit/loss and there was a strong correllation, with an R squared figure of .75-.80. Basically I lost $$ if my win % of flops was below 28% and won $$ if it was above. Profit/loss didn't correlate nearly as well with the other stats like overall win %, % flops seen, or % showdowns won.

[sthief09]

All it takes is a few lucky hands to make a session successful. That's why you can't evaluate sample sizes of 200 hands. Luck plays a huge factor, and you can't possibly figure out a correlation between winning and a particular stat.

In baseball, 600 AB's is enough of a sample size. Evaluating a player's play is really easy, and evaluating your success in forecasting is also easy (ahh, so glad it's baseball season). In poker, numbers are only a guideline. The subtleties are what make or break your long term success.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
I think win % of flops seen is the best indicator of the luck factor in a session. I've kept stats on my see flop %, win % of flops, profit/loss from session etc for the last 20+ sessions. I did a regression analysis on my win % of flops seen and profit/loss and there was a strong correllation, with an R squared figure of .75-.80. Basically I lost $$ if my win % of flops was below 28% and won $$ if it was above. Profit/loss didn't correlate nearly as well with the other stats like overall win %, % flops seen, or % showdowns won.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I consider WSF% a number that I have the least control over. You're really only affecting the hands that people fold. Which according to most people on here is NEVER /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[thedudeoflife]

its interesting that 28% is the number..because i was looking at my pokertracker database and I have 2,500 3/6 hands in it now( not a significant number) and my p/l is down 100. ...without the rake i am up over 100....(more fuel to the argument that you need to play higher limits to help overcome the rake) any way my win if flop seen % is 28.4.

[thedudeoflife]

I think the reason why it is very significant is because it is telling you the % of the time that you are putting money in the pot. If you play tight aggressive you are raising preflop a good bit of the time and are playing flops aggressively as well as the turn etc. If you don't win enough of these hands ,whether do to bad luck or flaws inyour game like not being able to let go of a pocket pair or taking AK, AQ too far, you will be losing hands that cost you a lot of bets.

[thedudeoflife]

I ran 2 simulations on turbo texas holdem. Both simulations were for 175,000 hands, using a rake structure of 5% with a 3.00 max and no dealer toke. I used the same lineups for each. The only difference was that the first sim was for 3/6 HE and the second sim was 10/20 HE.


the results were interesting I thought.

For the 3/6 sim: 8 out 10 players finished with negative p/l's. The 2 best p/l's were + 2,138 and $1,282. The 3 worst p/l's were -66,198, -75,684, and -67,838

For the 10/20 sim: 6 out of 10 players finished with negative p/l's. The 2 best p/l's were +27,025 and +33,041 (same 2 players as 3/6 sim). The 3 worst p/l's were -160,424, -181,881, and -139,191 (same 3 players as 3/6 sim).

the lineup was :welcome waldo, buford muldoon, trickie dickie, nathan detroit, red e teller, omar:potmaker!, myopic mike, harry the horse, renfeld, and conan the librarian. a mixture of tight avg and loose profiles.





[ QUOTE ]
its interesting that 28% is the number..because i was looking at my pokertracker database and I have 2,500 3/6 hands in it now( not a significant number) and my p/l is down 100. ...without the rake i am up over 100....(more fuel to the argument that you need to play higher limits to help overcome the rake) any way my win if flop seen % is 28.4.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
its interesting that 28% is the number..because i was looking at my pokertracker database and I have 2,500 3/6 hands in it now( not a significant number) and my p/l is down 100. ...without the rake i am up over 100....(more fuel to the argument that you need to play higher limits to help overcome the rake) any way my win if flop seen % is 28.4.



[/ QUOTE ]

After 8000 hands I'm up around $250 playing 3/6 and my win % after seeing flop is around 28.7%

Without more data its tough to say whether 28% is some magic number. Plus, your % flops seen will effect your % win after flop -- looser play should lower the win % of flops seen -- so the magic number will be different for different playing styles, looseness of tables played, etc.

Also skill obviously plays a part. Let's say 28% is a magic number for win % after flop, clearly more skilled players will be able to either boost that % by winning hands a unskilled player would lose. Also, a more skilled player would make more profit than an unskilled player with the same win % after flop by maximizing the money they make when they win and minimizing what they give away when they lose.

[mmanne]

I think it's more important to learn to beat the game at low limits than to worry about the rake taking too much. WSF% of 28% sounds kind of low to me, I'm usually happy if I can get it to around 33%. What type of VPIP are you guys having with the WSF? These numbers all relate, so some might hve different profitable combinations of these numbers.

Also, the guys who said they were -100 or +250 at 3/6 over several thousand hands, that's reasonably insignificant. That's approximately saying you are even over that time.

matt

[CrackerZack]

I like to use $$ won.

[MrBlini]

I agree about beating the game.

It's a good session if I have made few obvious mistakes. I've had good losing sessions.

It's a bad session if I have made a number of obvious mistakes. I've had bad winning sessions.

[MRBAA]

I'm currently beating 2-4 at Party for 4bb/hour. I "typically" see about 25%-28% of flops and I think that's as low as you should go. If you have to go lower, find another table. Naturally, seeing more flops because you can outplay your opponents later means you're often going to miss and fold. So your winning % goes down. I find that a typical winning session for me might be 27% of flops seen and 24% won.

At a good, loose passive table I'll limp with J-10s utg, any little pair with one player in, etc. and so on. If you're in a game where you can't make these plays, find another game.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason why it is very significant is because it is telling you the % of the time that you are putting money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

VP$IP tells you that.