|
|
#1
02-09-2005, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
I had the roll, and only played a few thousand hands at .5/1 before moving up. I did OK at 1/2, but wasn't satisfied with my play at .5/1 - I decided to move back down. I've got the first benchmark 10,000 hands at this limit, so I thought I'd post some observations about my game - and how I'll go about fixing them.
All my stats are good - except BB/100, but my sample size is too small for any real conclusions. W$SD is also a bit under 50%. I think I've been calling a bit "too" liberally on the river with marginal hands. I'm playing a little tighter than I used to - but only by a percentage point or so. The games are more aggressive at Party than they were at Prima, and I feel it's likely that this is what causing the tightness. Looking at my overall losing hands indicates that I need to go over these hands and figure out _why_ I'm losing money with them. QJs, KJs, A8s, KTs, 77, QTs, A7s, A6s, 22, and A4s are my top 10 money losers that I "routinely" put money into the pot with. I'm noticing a trend here - namely suited aces and big suited cards. The pocket pairs are likely variance - I'm winning with all other PP. I've only been spending an average of 35.7 hands per table - clearly not enough to get any good reads on players. The average hands/hr rate for me has been 59/hr - which is considerably quicker than I've been used to, and has likely led to some errors in my play. I'm a multi-tabler - I've had some reservations about it, but I'm adjusting to the quicker pace of play. I have a MT ratio of 2.58 (2 to 3 tables at once). I rarely play four - usually only when I'm getting off one table and have already joined a table I've scouted. I think I'm OK in this regard - but I definately need to stick with the tables a little longer. I have a fairly good progression from tight to loose position-wise (early to button). The blinds are doing me in, though. I've lost twice as much in the blinds than I've netted in any other single position. I don't know how I'll fix this, though. I'll think about it more. Yeow. I've won over $1,700 in 10,131 hands. Of course - this isn't counting all the times I folded before showdown. Factoring in the times I've folded - I've won a mere $130. I've lost $1570 folding busted draws, missed flops, and I suspect the best hand on more than a few occasions. I'm not sure that this is normal or not - never seen it discussed before (other than the generic term "variance"). It would seem that a weak-tight strategy would narrow this gap quite a bit - so mabye that's why it is so popular. Party tables seem a bit tighter overall than is indicated. There are usually up to four or five really horrible players at a table - but the times when someone good could have been the "only" good player at a table seem to be gone. This means that positioning at a table has become so much more important. Tight players to the left, and loose players to the right. I haven't been as strict here as I should be, except that I really don't like playing with a LAG or two on my immediate left. Average seen flop % for this block of hands is just above 41%. The highest rate that I've seen (with a meaninful amount of hands at a table) is 57%. It would seem that the tables I've been selecting rarely call for Ed Miller's loose table playlist. Average VPIP is 36% - so that gives me an easier indicator after watching a table for awhile. Add 5%. How am I going to fix some of these problems? Well - I'm going to post some of those suited hands that I seem to be having trouble with. I'm going to practice good table and almost more importantly (to me) seat selection. I'm also going to move over to Miller's "tight" playlist as a default - only playing hands from the loose list when I'm going to be in a pot against loose players with an estimated average VPIP of over 50%. This will tighten me up a bit more, but I think it may be worth it. I also know that I've been playing overcards too strongly - so as a "general rule", I'm going to try to fold those hands that don't have backdoor draws. Lastly, I'm going to study every single hand that I lost more than $4 with - treating my study of myself as I would studying any single opponent. This may be the best way to improve my leaks. I know I have a couple - but I'm positive there are more. 
|
|
#3
02-09-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
This is a very well thought out post. I was expecting to see a here are my stats; am I good yet? I'll see what I can comment on here:
"All my stats are good - except BB/100" Haha. It looks like you are at least a winning player. 10000 is not too many hands. I wouldn't worry too much about this just yet. If you focus on the other stats this will correct itself (you know that, I think) what position are you playing your suited aces from? with how many limpers? you want these in an unraised pot against a big field. they can be played in EP and MP, but only at very loose-passive tables. The big suited hands are a but tougher here. I would, as you suggested, look over them. when you flop a pair, but no flush possibility, are you overplaying your pair with a low-end high kicker? are you over-valuing the BDFD? I know I had a bit of a problem with that myself. I think your large percentage of winnings folded on busted draws, etc. is pretty normal. I haven't really seen it discussed either so that probably means it's not really an issue. Party tables shouldn't seem tight at .5/1. If this is the case, then you need to work on your table selection. I, personally would rather have a bad seat at a good table, as you can usually adapt to it. example: if you have a LAG or two on your left, you can make it 2 cold to the field pretty often, and you can c/r your big hands and trap the whole field. Your ideas for improvement look good. Post hands, review, etc. Some numbers would be ok in addition to this analysis if you like. If you are comfortable that your numbers are good, then that's perfectly fine as well. The interesting thing about leaks at .5/1 is that they often go unnoticed without careful srutiny, because it's very easy to be a winning player with significant leaks t that level. Posting hands will probably be the key to your plugging these leaks. Some of the posters really have a lot to offer.
|
|
#4
02-09-2005, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
[ QUOTE ]
Looking at my overall losing hands indicates that I need to go over these hands and figure out _why_ I'm losing money with them. QJs, KJs, A8s, KTs, 77, QTs, A7s, A6s, 22, and A4s are my top 10 money losers that I "routinely" put money into the pot with. [/ QUOTE ] Good post. 77 and 22 are just variance, but you know that. Ax suited, QJs, KJs, KTs, and QTs are all difficult hands to play and are very marginal winners. I like your idea of going over hands you lost, but I'd concentrate on the above hands first. As far as others calling for your stats go, don't post 'em if you don't want to. 10K is just a benchmark that some follow. It ain't no thing. $103?!?! Congrats! Be happy you're a winner. I put in 30,000 hands at .50/1 and only had $800 to show for it, but a win is a win.
|
|
#5
02-09-2005, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeow. I've won over $1,700 in 10,131 hands. Of course - this isn't counting all the times I folded before showdown. Factoring in the times I've folded - I've won a mere $130. I've lost $1570 folding busted draws, missed flops, and I suspect the best hand on more than a few occasions. I'm not sure that this is normal or not - never seen it discussed before (other than the generic term "variance"). It would seem that a weak-tight strategy would narrow this gap quite a bit - so mabye that's why it is so popular. [/ QUOTE ] This Paragraph is confusing to me, would you care to elaborate? Are you saing that your Gross winnings are 1700, but your net winnings are only 130? I read this a few times and am jsut very very confused.
|
|
#8
02-09-2005, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
[ QUOTE ]
W$SD is also a bit under 50%. [/ QUOTE ] Depending on how much below 50 this stat is, it is probably either indicative of a moderate problem or a major problem. It's not a problem to be ignored, however.
|
|
#9
02-09-2005, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] W$SD is also a bit under 50%. [/ QUOTE ] Depending on how much below 50 this stat is, it is probably either indicative of a moderate problem or a major problem. It's not a problem to be ignored, however. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. It's 49.56%.
|
|
#10
02-09-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: first 10K hands at Party .5/1... some observations.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeow. I've won over $1,700 in 10,131 hands. Of course - this isn't counting all the times I folded before showdown. Factoring in the times I've folded - I've won a mere $130. I've lost $1570 folding busted draws, missed flops, and I suspect the best hand on more than a few occasions. I'm not sure that this is normal or not - never seen it discussed before (other than the generic term "variance"). It would seem that a weak-tight strategy would narrow this gap quite a bit - so mabye that's why it is so popular. [/ QUOTE ] This Paragraph is confusing to me, would you care to elaborate? Are you saing that your Gross winnings are 1700, but your net winnings are only 130? I read this a few times and am jsut very very confused. [/ QUOTE ] I got this info from the stats window of PT. It's the difference in "Net Amount" when the "Show Only Hands That Were Not Folded" checkbox is checked and unchecked. Basically, I won over $1700 at showdown - but lost 92.5% of that in the hands that I didn't go to showdown with - busted draws, laying down the best hand, blinds, etc. Sorry for the confusion. Like I said, I've not seen this figure used in any meaningful way - and I might not be doing so myself.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
