PDA

View Full Version : Ready to move up?


Atropos
05-21-2005, 04:56 PM
Hey folks, after implementing some of Gigabets tricks I seem to do much better:

#Game No :
***** Hand History for Game *****
NL Hold'em $30 Buy-in + $3 Entry Fee Trny: Level:1 Blinds(10/15) - Saturday, May 21, 13:46:10 EDT 2005
Table Table **** (Real Money)
Seat 2 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: mytho_1987 ( $755 )
Seat 2: wmood ( $1775 )
Seat 3: Bobson55 ( $740 )
Seat 5: Looselady111 ( $785 )
Seat 6: Bktuna ( $920 )
Seat 7: hunger_13 ( $375 )
Seat 8: HERO ( $770 )
Seat 9: Swan_Lee ( $760 )
Seat 10: rrojas ( $1120 )
Trny: Level:1
Blinds(10/15)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to HERO [ Th Td ]
Bktuna folds.
hunger_13 folds.
HERO calls [15].
Swan_Lee folds.
rrojas raises [50].
mytho_1987 folds.
wmood folds.
Bobson55 folds.
Looselady111 folds.
HERO calls [35].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Js, Qd, Qh ]
HERO checks.
rrojas bets [50].
HERO calls [50].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Ks ]
HERO bets [175].
rrojas calls [175].
** Dealing River ** [ 2c ]
HERO is all-In [495]
rrojas will be using his time bank for this hand.
HERO: AK ?
rrojas: yup
HERO: ok
rrojas folds.
HERO does not show cards.
HERO wins 1070 chips

No seriously are the 55s much harder than the 33s? It seems I could play much better if I just had more starting chips.
In the 33s I achieved an ROI of 0.55% over 132 tournaments.

Sure insufficient sample size but it is worth to stay at a level that can be beat without any problems for an eternity just to determine ones exact win rate?

J-Lo
05-21-2005, 06:24 PM
It's plays like these that give u a 0.55% ROI.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 06:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's plays like these that give u a 0.55% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats rather a product of AA losing against 22 and stuff...

Voltron87
05-21-2005, 06:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's plays like these that give u a 0.55% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats rather a product of AA losing against 22 and stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've never won a showdown you weren't favored to?

Take all the times you won as an underdog out too, if you don't want to count your bad beats.

The4Aces
05-21-2005, 06:36 PM
i dont think you are ready to move up yet. but if you have the bankroll to move up you should give it a chance. Maybe you can do better with more chips.

Benholio
05-21-2005, 06:44 PM
98% of Party players are not laying down AK there.
96% of Party players are not laying down Kx there.
83% of Party players are not laying down Jx there.

Bluffing unbluffable players = bad. You need a specific read on your opponent to be able to do something like this profitably.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 06:58 PM
"So you've never won a showdown you weren't favored to?

Take all the times you won as an underdog out too, if you don't want to count your bad beats. "

Of course sometimes I win as an underdog too. Most of the time it's when blind stealing and getting caught, or once in hundred games preflop all-in with KK against AA. I don't necessarily complain because I think Sklansky already stated, that good players will get sucked out more often than bad players, because they get there money in with the best of it most of the times.

However my 33 results have been skewed, here 14 Preflop-Allins with AA:

AA against JJ: lost
AA against KJo: lost
AA against JJ: won
AA against J5o: lost
AA against J6o: won
AA against 88: lost
AA against KJs: lost
AA against Q6s: won
AA against JJ : lost
AA against KK: won
AA against K8s: won
AA against 22: lost
AA against 99: won
AA against K9o: lost

Winrate: 42.85%, for AA not very good

Voltron87
05-21-2005, 07:03 PM
It's simply fundamentally wrong to look at your winrate and say "well I had bad beats so it's not really accurate". It's just wrong. And nothing you can say can change the fact that bad beats will happen and you can't say your winrate is lower than you deserve because your AA got cracked a couple times.

valenzuela
05-21-2005, 07:06 PM
yikes!! the good news is that u can easily fix your play, just dont bluff on level1,2,3 never ever again.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 07:10 PM
"It's simply fundamentally wrong to look at your winrate and say "well I had bad beats so it's not really accurate". It's just wrong."

Why not? I'm not trying to argue here, I just dont understand it. If AA is supposed to win 70% or 80% of the time and I get only 42% and every time I lose it costs me a whole Buyin isn't it relatively safe to assume that I would have a higher ROI if AA did in fact win 70% of the time?

However one cant change the way the cards fall, thats true.

valenzuela
05-21-2005, 07:13 PM
Just play 3000 sngs. That way u cant complain against bad beats.

Blarg
05-21-2005, 07:16 PM
It can take tens of thousands of hands before your pair hands come into alignment as their proper percentage of winners.

Shilly
05-21-2005, 07:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"It's simply fundamentally wrong to look at your winrate and say "well I had bad beats so it's not really accurate". It's just wrong."

Why not? I'm not trying to argue here, I just dont understand it. If AA is supposed to win 70% or 80% of the time and I get only 42% and every time I lose it costs me a whole Buyin isn't it relatively safe to assume that I would have a higher ROI if AA did in fact win 70% of the time?

However one cant change the way the cards fall, thats true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although your AA got cracked so many times, is it not possible that you have done the same to your opponents over the same amount of time?

Voltron87
05-21-2005, 07:18 PM
I'm sorry to say, but right now you just don't have a very good theoretical understanding of poker or how it generally "works", and the general mathematical dynamics of the game. Don't worry, it will come in time. All of the so called "big wheels" on this forum were at your level once too, so don't take this as an insult just as me saying you're a beginner right now and that will change if you keep playing and thinking like you are for long enough.

jek187
05-21-2005, 07:29 PM
Preflop:
Wouldn't it make more sense to raise this hand preflop? It seems that because a hand like TT is so weak when OCs come, you can't allow players to with face cards to limp into the pot behind you.

Flop:
What does a typical Party 33 player raise with after a caller? Someone can correct me, but I'd say something like: AA-99, AK-AT, KQ, KJs, QJs, JTs.

Out of this group, we can hope for AK, AT, or 99. Everything else is trouble. Is 3.5-1 enough to take a card off here? I don't particularly care for the check/call. Also, if you are up against one of the 3 "good" hands, your check allows your opponent to take a precious free card for his 6, 7, or 2 outter, respectively. I think I'm in favor of a probing bet of my own here on this flop, however any resistance, and I'm willing to call it quits here.

Turn:
The card that helps 2 of the 3 hands we're hoping for our opponent to have, gets there. Although we have now picked up a rather dubious open ended straight draw. At this point we "know" we're behind, but would like to draw. By betting 175, we're giving ourselves 2.3-1 to draw at our hand, which is woefully inadequate. I don't really see a better hand folding here (AJ maybe, but that's it.) I think a very small bet may be the way to go here, and pray we don't get raised. The whole situation sucks at this time.

Is a Party 33 player laying down anything you're behind to here 32% of the time? I just can't imagine that, especially not TPTK.

Please point out any errors in my thoughts here.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 07:40 PM
I dont take this as an insult, I just think it is complete bullshit. I hate those posts where people only talk and dont use any numbers to make a point.

If you decide to flip coins with a rich man. He will pay you 5$ if the coin hits heads, you lose 1$ if it hits tails. Seems like a good game?

After 100 flips you are down 100$. The coin seems normal, so you figure the odds of hitting heads/tails are 50% each. Maybe the coin is a little rigged so that it is 55:45 but you dont know that. (like you dont know your exact winrate).

However you can say: The chance I hit heads is 50%. I did not hit heads over 100 flips. The chance for this is (1/2)^exp 100. You assume that your winrate is not -100$/100 flips for this game, because the outcome seems highly unlikely to you. You hope that the probabilities will even out at some time, the so called LONG RUN.

If you argue, plz argue with that. I am not impressed by words, if you think you are above "beginner" level and classify others you have to prove it to me first. Otherwise I would prefer if you do not answer in my threads anymore, because you do not add anything of worth. Dont take this as an insult, it's just the way I see things.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 07:45 PM
"Preflop:
Wouldn't it make more sense to raise this hand preflop? It seems that because a hand like TT is so weak when OCs come, you can't allow players to with face cards to limp into the pot behind you. "

I had been running bad so to reduce variance I just wanted to play TT very passive for set value only. A raise is probably better, but I think implied odds for limping are still there.

The rest of the hand I cant really comment on. Under normal circumstances I would check-fold the hand here. However when I played the hand I thought I had a good read on my opponent and wanted to try something gigabet-like.

jek187
05-21-2005, 08:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A raise is probably better, but I think implied odds for limping are still there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly correct. Limping is +EV, it's just that raising is more +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
However when I played the hand I thought I had a good read on my opponent and wanted to try something gigabet-like.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did you read him as having? I think I prefer to leave gigabet's plays up to gigabet.

Blarg
05-21-2005, 08:08 PM
You do seem to have a snappy tongue and a big ego, dude. That can't be good -- and no, I don't have a mathematical basis to make that assertion.

Your response to Voltron neither proved your point nor disproved Voltron's. All it did was express anger. So what was the point of it? It added nothing.

A more productive response might have been to ask him to simply explain more clearly what he meant. By just rejecting what he said out of hand, you haven't created anything positive out of what could be a potentially fruitful exchange; you've just squandered an opportunity and seem to have willfully sought out the opportunity to create an enemy.

And made yourself look silly while doing it.

Here's my suggestion, and you can add me to the list of people you hate because of it, if you like: Next time you feel like making a post like that, wait ten minutes or so first, and then see if you still feel like making it.

Atropos
05-21-2005, 08:25 PM
"You do seem to have a snappy tongue"
Everyone who knows me would attest you this it true. However if I write in english it is often unintended. If I say "I hate this" I only say "hate" because it is shorter than "do not like" and other words dont come to my mind because I dont know them.

The rest seems like nonsense to me, it just seems nobody understands me and I dont understand anyone either. I in fact did not see any point he tried to make. He said:
"It's simply fundamentally wrong " and "It's just wrong."

His general point was clear to me, I did not need to ask what he meant: He says I should not discount bad beats that happen against me, because then I would have to discount everytime I suck out too. Thats fine, logical and obvious, everybody understands that. There is no need telling anybody this, unless you think he is an idiot.

Why my example with the coins did not prove my point I cannot understand. Perhaps there is in fact something wrong, but somebody would have to disprove it mathematically.

Patriarch
05-21-2005, 08:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just play 3000 sngs. That way u cant complain against bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly what I was going to say. If you think your winrate is artificially low, keep playing until the beats even out then take a look.

Blarg
05-21-2005, 08:59 PM
Well, I tried.

adanthar
05-21-2005, 09:07 PM
Bottom line: you are trying fancy plays at times you have no place doing them in, you are playing poker when you shouldn't be and trying to quantify everything as a math problem when you should be playing poker. You're also very results oriented and very quick to demand proof regardless of the number of people who are telling you the same thing. You're not some sort of original rebel thinker going against the orthodoxy; we've all made these mistakes earlier, and they are elementary to fix, but they are, in fact, mistakes.

You've managed to break even after 150 SNG's in a game that a bot that just pushes or folds preflop can beat. Those results are far from meaningless even with a typical small-scale bad beat streak with one particular hand and they should tell you something.

raptor517
05-21-2005, 09:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sure insufficient sample size but it is worth to stay at a level that can be beat without any problems for an eternity just to determine ones exact win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]
what do you think yer exact win rate would be?

[ QUOTE ]
No seriously are the 55s much harder than the 33s? It seems I could play much better if I just had more starting chips.
In the 33s I achieved an ROI of 0.55% over 132 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]
if u think u will do better, move up. u dont need MY permission. holla

raptor517
05-21-2005, 09:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's plays like these that give u a 0.55% ROI.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No thats rather a product of AA losing against 22 and stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

im assuming 'an stuff' includes other leaks like betting with 1010 in the situation you described? i wonder if you even put the opponent on a hand there, or if you blindly kept firing shots hoping he would fold.. you cant put all of your results on getting sucked out on. it happens. holla

raptor517
05-21-2005, 09:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
However you can say: The chance I hit heads is 50%. I did not hit heads over 100 flips. The chance for this is (1/2)^exp 100. You assume that your winrate is not -100$/100 flips for this game, because the outcome seems highly unlikely to you. You hope that the probabilities will even out at some time, the so called LONG RUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

therefore it would make sense that you understand how many SNGS the long run really is. its a LOT. period. yer sample is equivalent to a speck of dust in the galaxy. aint chit. once you hit 1k sngs, you will be at a planet in the galaxy. around 10k, you will reach solar system status. keep this in mind when looking at short term results. holla

microbet
05-21-2005, 10:00 PM
I wonder how much carnage Gigabet's post caused?

He was on the bubble in a high-buyin MTT and significantly overbet the pot. You are early on in a low buyin STT and bet about pot.

All you did was get a busted draw to fold. You would have won the hand if it showed down.

DasLeben
05-21-2005, 10:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In the 33s I achieved an ROI of 0.55% over 132 tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

132 SNGs is a little more than a day's work for some people, and they don't win everyday at all. An ROI of 0.55% over 132 tourneys doesn't say anything whatsoever.

valenzuela
05-22-2005, 12:33 AM
yes it does, the poster plays in the 33s and he doensnt have enough understanding about sng since he thinks his stats are enough for conclusions.

DasLeben
05-22-2005, 12:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
yes it does, the poster plays in the 33s and he doensnt have enough understanding about sng since he thinks his stats are enough for conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a mighty big assumption. Inferior knowledge of statistics does not necessarily mean that he has inferior knowledge of the game. Without going through his tourney histories, nobody can say that he was or wasn't playing bad.

By the way, I've been noticing a bit of a disturbing trend here and there (including in this post). Too many people have been so quick to judge a negative ROI as bad play over an insignificant sample. However, the same people will consider a high ROI as "unsustainable variance." Remember, variance works two ways. Can I say that someone that has a 50% ROI over 132 SNGs is an awesome player? Of course not! I'm sure there are plenty of terrible players that have run this well over 132 SNGs; that's what keeps them coming back. A negative (or even a positive) ROI over 132 games means nothing, regardless of skill level*.

"Statistically significant" is not just a buzz term people throw around on this board for fun. Luck plays such a huge role in short-term results that no conclusions can be drawn from them. At all.

* I would know. About a year ago I tried my hand at Party SNGs for the first time, and ran obnoxiously well (40%+ ROI) over this large a sample. At that point in time I knew nothing about proper SNG play.

Blarg
05-22-2005, 03:12 AM
Yeah, I think even a lot of people who have played a truly huge number of hands still have no idea how long the long run really is.

As I noted somewhere the other day, the difference between 4th and 3rd is huge monetarily, and so is the difference between 2nd and 1st, but both are often just a matter of losing a single coinflip. Huge variation being generated pretty much by an accident of the deal, and the number of times you're not even 4th or better in the first place, means an incredible number of games have to be played before you can start saying that luck couldn't be a significant contributor to your ROI.