Expanding preflop requirements through Poker Tracker statistics

[TStoneMBD]

These forums have a very conformed way of thinking as far as what hands are playable and what hands are not. They are almost certainly correct, or at least very close to correct, for the PP15 games. However, I'm trying to expand my preflop holdings by filtering through poker tracker which hands surprisngly show the most profit after 50k hands.

If for instance, JTs shows .5BB profit UTG, how should I determine the likelyhood of 9Ts showing profit UTG without playing the hand in this position several thousands of times? Would it make sense that if JTs shows a .5BB profit, and QJs shows a .8BB profit, should 9Ts show a profit near .2BB? If QTo shows a profit of .3BB on the button, while KTo shows a profit of .5BB, would it be reasonable to assume that JTo will show .1BB? What about Q9o?

Obviously these hands are really stretching the limits to what is playable preflop, and every decision is situational. However, is it possible for experimental purposes, to have someone play 30k hands at .5/.1 with loose opening requirements and compare those figures to higher stakes games? Clearly table context is extremely important, but if JTs shows a profit of .15BB, while QJs showing .20BB, would 9Ts show .10BB? These numbers wouldn't correlate smoothly with higher stakes games of course, but would the experiment be worth the time and effort? Would it be worth it to get some extensive PT data from a winning SS micro player in exchange for some money or coaching who has records of loose hands in loose positions in order to progress in the understanding of expert preflop play?

Normally I wouldn't question the preflop starting guidelines on these forums as I'm sure they have been tested somewhat extensively to conform optimal strategy, but with Peter_rus coming up with all these new numbers showing flawed logic in these forums, I'm starting to question exactly how accurate the theories of these forums truly are.

Clearly a better postflop player will be able to play significantly more hands, so shouldn't it be possible to compare postflop BB/100 statistics with others to see how well a player is playing postflop? If a player ranks in a certain class of postflop ability, he should be able to play a certain class of starting hands. We would be able to clear up alot of confusion between the players on these forums, wondering if they are playing too tightly or too loosely. Our starting hand requirements would be pinned down to a science based on our postflop skills, rather than our intuitive belief that we are (x) good, so we can play (y) hands.

I wish that the players on these forums would be more open to sharing their PT data with one another. Clearly players need to protect themselves from others finding out about their every leak, but if ego were to be set aside these combined numbers could help us evolve as poker players.

[DcifrThs]

do you understanding the statistical extrapolation method of hot-decking and cold-decking?

-Barron

[Dov]

I think that your question/search is ignoring something very important.

While poker does have mathematical underpinnings, it is still a people game played with cards.

All of the good post flop players have a style of their own which determines which types of situations they can get themselves into and later extract themselves from, if they need to, with minimal damage.

I have a feeling that the raw numbers wouldn't tell you the whole story.

For example, if you compare the play of top players like Lederer and Hanson, you will find that they are both good post flop, but they seek out different types of situations which play to their table image's strengths.

There is too much involved in post flop play to reduce it to a simple preflop formula, IMHO.

Post flop play is very situational and player dependent. The better your reads and your understanding of your own image, the more opportunities you will find to exploit situations on later streets. Then you can play more hands. This is kind of like improving your relative position in the hand.

If you are more skilled, you will have more information about your opponent and his holdings before it is your turn to act. This allows you to play more hands profitably.

Maybe this is the best way to think about it. I think I'm just rambling now, so I'll end it here.

Good Post. Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

Dov

[TStoneMBD]

The better your reads and your understanding of your own image, the more opportunities you will find to exploit situations on later streets. Then you can play more hands. This is kind of like improving your relative position in the hand.

The problem with comparing Gus Hansen to Howard Lederer is that youve probably only seen them play no limit, which is an entirely different situation all together. There isn't nearly as many different styles in limit, and there is a fairly distinctive perfect play, as there isn't in no limit.

Also, you say that you can play more hands if you can exploit players postflop, which to me is rewording that if you are better postflop you can play more hands. I think that if you compared your postflop stats to a player with identical postflop stats, you should be able to play the same amount of hands as him for profit. Of course, its very likely that despite their near identical skill sets, they will not be able to play weaker hands for profit as well as the counterpart player in some situations, but then what that leads to is questioning. Why does J9s work in this position for you but not me? Let's review some of these hands together.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does J9s work in this position for you but not me? Let's review some of these hands together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the main differences that you will find between expert players will be the opponents that they faced at the time they played the hand(s).

It has been said before that a significant portion of success at the tables is game selection. This may be one of the indications of that wisdom.

For example, if you sit down in a LAP LL game, you will be able to play all kinds of hands from EP that you wouldn't be able to otherwise play.

This is because the players of that game will let you do that to them, and you have the knowledge and skill to play those extra hands, post flop.

A less knowledgeable player will lose money with those same hands that you can play because they won't recognize the post flop situations as well as you do.

I don't think you see this only in terms of BB/100, even filtered for post flop play. I think you would have to do this with a filtered game type as well.

If you do this with say, a game where you compare the table averages with your relative position to the various player types being equal, then you may have a basis for comparison, provided that they are also all of the same basic skill level.

I think that you are reaching the border of why poker is such an interesting game to start with, and why expert players will often disagree on the correct play of a hand. They will both be right too, unless every game and player variable is clearly defined, including the Hero's playing style and skills.

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

I was only comparing Hanson and Lederer metaphorically. I haven't seen them play other than NL, as you correctly state. It is clear, however, that they value their holdings and opponents differently, and that they are both highly skilled players. This was simply meant to suggest that there is obviously more than one way to skin a cat and that what works for one person may not work as well for the next.

I agree that the limit situations are much closer, but the thought processes that get you there will still be slightly different from one player to the next. This is what will make certain things more important than others in the analysis of a situation to different players and cause them to come to slightly different conclusions, or the same conclusion for different reasons.

Dov