Re: Winnings by position: a smooth slope?
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question. It seems that if you are playing the most hands from the button, and had the best position on the button, you would win the most money on the button. One thing that might offset this is if you are playing too loose as your position improves.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. It is an interesting question because we're not sure what the relationship between the two is, or even if a significant relationship does exist.
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way you could post or link graphs of winnings as a function of position...?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would but I don't have near enough hands for my data to mean anything (100,000+ hands lost when computer fizzled, back to ~8300 hands).
Nottom:
For any given position, 99 is a better hand than KQo; that is, it would win more money in a simulation. For any given hand, being on the button (or otherwise acting last) presumably has a higher EV than the same hand played UTG.
The question then becomes, at what mix of hand and position does 99 and KQo have roughly the same EV? Is KQo on the button as strong as 99 UTG? I read your theory to say that they would approach the same EV.
Knowing the answer to this would explain why a theoretically correct slope of money won by position, given that hands played by position differs for logical reasons, would either follow the same slope, or not.
Like Phat Mack pointed out, you loosen up on the button. You do this because you're compensated with better position. Should you then win more money from the button than UTG? And then are you winning more/less money in an absolute sense, or more/less on a BB/hand sense.
Glad someone else sees this as interesting!
|