Redefining \"Cold-Decked\"
Since dropping down to 3/6, I've gone from 22/15 to 17/13. I had tightened up my starting requirements a tad shortly before changing levels and lost a little over 1% VP$IP from SB because of the 1/3 structure, but there's no way those two factors could account for 5% of my hands. So, I figured out what my hand distribution should have been (20 for pairs, 55 for offsuiteds and 14 for suiteds) and compared it with my actual hands dealt:
<font color="green">AA +5 . . . KK +5</font> . . . QQ -2 . . . JJ 0 . . . TT 0
AKs -2. . . KQs -7. . . QJs -1. . . JTs +1
<font color="red"> AK -14 </font>. . . KQ -9 . . . QJ -13
AQs -7. . . KJs +7. . . QTs -5
<font color="red">AQ -24</font>. . . KJ -19. . . QT -12
AJs +4. . . KTs +5. . . Q9s +1
AJ -7 . . . KT -16
ATs -1. . . K9s -2
AT -5
A9s +2
A9 -20
A8s +4
99 -2 . . . 88 +3 . . . 77 0 . . . 66 +6 . . . 55 -6
That's a deficit of 121 hands, or 2.7% VP$IP! The effective difference is probably under 2%, but that's still an enormous difference after 4,500 hands. We've all seen how long and deep fluctuations in win rate can go, but who would've thought VP$IP could vary so much?
Scott
|