Question about data from Pokerroom

In the thread below, the consensus seems to be that the data is tainted because it includes the losing players with the winners. That's fine if you want to know how the EVs of KTs and JTs compare when expertly played. But what if we wanted to know if Joe Blow could play it profitably?


If the data shows that a particular hand is consistently profitable for everyone, could we then assume that said hand would be even more profitable in the hands of an expert? Can we assume that if a hand shows a profit when played by the masses, that it is then a profitable hand in that position?


For example, if QJo is shown to be profitable only within 3 of the button, should we then assume that the hand is playable once it gets to that position, and should be folded before that? After all, if all of these poor players are able to show an overall profit with it, shouldn't a competant winning 2+2er be able to do the same thing?


All feedback welcome.

you still have to take into consideration the texture of the game. which the stats dont mention. its just a general overview...


"should we then assume that the hand is playable once it gets to that position, and should be folded before that?"


you may be asking for too definitive of an answer here. this is why the data is skewed a little and can be misleading.


b

"you still have to take into consideration the texture of the game"


Bernie, on one level, no duh. Obviously anyone takes game texture into consideration when deciding what to play where.


But on another level, maybe not. Its not like Joe Blow is necessarily doing that. If over 7 million hands, any retard is able to play QJo profitably 3 from the button, surely that occurs over a range of situations, no? I think that it is an idea that seriously needs to be examined. We are dealing with average tables and average results. So we aren't talking about "very tough" games here.


"This is why the data is skewed and can be a little misleading"


The data is correct. If it says AA on that site has had an EV of 2.44BB over the millions of hands played, then that is what it is. The data is right. It is the meaning that is up for debate.


It is only misleading if you try and get it to be something that it isn't. That is why asking appropriate questions is key. Just because we don't necessarily know the correct questions to ask right now, doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least make an effort. To dismiss the data as being useless out of hand is silly, IMO.

i think it would be interesting to compare from one site to the next. see if there are any parallels. never said it was useless, just dependent.


b

Can we assume that if a hand shows a profit when played by the masses, that it is then a profitable hand in that position?


This certainly sounds logical on the surface. I'll have to think about it.


Another issue that just struck me:


The "Conspiracy Forum" always has posts about bots being used on poker sites. For some reason, certain players think that makes the game harder rather than easier.


So, do these stats include the alleged bots?

"I'll have to think about it"


Do that. I think its a very interesting question. I think there is quite a bit here that is worth discussion, if nothing else.


I agree with Bernie that I wish other sites would publish this info. I would love to have access to similar data from Paradise.

Is my question too difficult, or too easy? I can't imagine that only 2 people have an opinion on this one. So its either real easy and I'm missing the boat, or its difficult an no one wants to stick their neck out with an opinion.


Love some feedback here, folks.

Clarkmeister,


The problem with data and statistics is that you are able to infer (nearly)anything you like by using the particular elements you choose. Or by setting up your hypothesis with specific parameters as you wish to in your question above. I believe the stats are a bunch of cool numbers that you may use to justify playing a specific hand in a certain position if you like.


Using your QJo example: You may get the hand the 125 times it loses in late position before you see the 212 times it wins (not real numbers here). If that happened to you would you keep playing it after 125 consequetive losses no matter what the stats said? Methinks NOT!!!! You would probably analyze the particular game you were in and se why it did not work in "your specific circumstances".


Not that I am a competent 2+2'r but you asked for a response.


Jimbo

My opinion is that Joe Blow is a much better player than 2+2ers give him credit for, and if some batch of stats says that Joe makes money in online games with such and such a hand in such and such a position, that info could be useful in a real poker game and I want it.


Let me know when the stats come out. If they don't include position, save the stamp.


Tommy

thomas


i know you are a busy man, but take a quick click on this :


https://www.pokerroom.com/evstats/to...php?players=10


it will show you the info that is available to you if you want it