|
|
#1
04-17-2005, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
So who is winning at micros?
This is a follow up to a post I made some months back. Just who is winning at .50/1 on Party Poker? This is based on at least 50 observed hands on players since last August.
LP/P...Fish icon--Winners 40.13%, BB/100 -5.15 LA/P...Dice icon--Winners 40.21%, BB/100 -7.44 TP/P...Rock icon--Winners 43.23%, BB/100 -1.52 SLP/P..Phone icon-Winners 49.41%, BB/100 -1.44 SLA/P..Frown icon-Winners 52.88%, BB/100 -0.18 TA/P...!!! icon---Winners 40.00%, BB/100 -1.12 SLP/A..??? icon---Winners 62.50%, BB/100 +5.15 SLA/A..Smile icon-Winners 60.96%, BB/100 +3.62 TP/A...Mouse icon-Winners 48.68%, BB/100 +0.74 LP/A..Elepnt icon-Winners 70.41%, BB/100 +14.32 (sample size WARNING on this one! Not too many elephants) LA/A...Taz icon---Winners 61.65%, BB/100 +6.10 TA/N...Eagle icon-Winners 37.96%, BB/100 -0.10 (sample size warning on Eagle too!) TA/A..Moneybags---Winners 67.88%, BB/100 +3.54 
|
|
#3
04-17-2005, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So who is winning at micros?
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Is this using PT's standard icon definitions? [/ QUOTE ] No. This is using the bisonbison rating system. I don't have the link, someone else should.
|
|
#5
04-17-2005, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So who is winning at micros?
I think that looking at these kind of stats is a very misleading thing. To be included in this data, that means the player has to stay in the game with you for 50 hands. This will clearly bias your data towards a certain type of player.
For example, notice that the maniacs have a huge win rate. This is probably because if a maniac is on a cold run of cards, they lose their money quick and get off the table, and you don't autorate them. If they get lucky and stick around for enough hands so that you can autorate them, they are going to come away big winners (because they're maniacs, maniacs either lose big or win big). Playing like a maniac is not profitable in the long run, but these stats make it look like it is. This isn't a sample size issue at all, it's more a problem of trying to select a truly random sample to analyze. It's an interesting set of statistics but it can be misleading.
|
|
#6
04-17-2005, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So who is winning at micros?
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but you will likely have a lot of selection bias in here. This is not really an easy analysis to do properly. Interesting post, nonetheless.
|
|
#7
04-17-2005, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So who is winning at micros?
That shows the average per icon. But what about within each group? The sLPA could have a few big winners running good spewing the stats with heavy losers and big winners. TAA could all be running within a few BB's overall giving them a better overall stat in reality? I'm no game theorist though. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#10
04-17-2005, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So who is winning at micros?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but you will likely have a lot of selection bias in here. This is not really an easy analysis to do properly. Interesting post, nonetheless. [/ QUOTE ] There's just no way to confirm a player's true playing style after a small number of hands. People getting good cards will be aggressive pre- and postflop and will bet and raise accordingly. I'm sure I've been observed by some others as a TPP, TAP, TPA, LAA, LPA, LAP, TAA, sLAP, sLPP, sLPA, sLAA, etc. after a hundred hands or so. During some of these streaks, I will be losing, during some I will be winning. If you had 1000+ hands on each player, it would get closer, but then you won't have enough players to counteract the fact that some players use aggression in the wrong spots. Anyway, I think someone did this using statistics he gathered from a few very large databases - I read it a really long time ago so I have no idea who did it. Maybe someone can link to it. It broke the players down by looseness preflop and aggression postflop, but it did not bother trying to differentiate between LAA and sLAA, for instance. It just gave stat intervals.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
