Profitabilty of party's 1/2 games.

[Mynok]

After an extended (11K hands) streak of basically break even poker at party's 1/2 games, I thought about posting yet another Woe is ME! post about streaks/bad runs/bad beats etc., but I took a deep breath and went into analyzis mode instead. I've checked all my PT stats and went through and looked at some of my biggest net loss hands and so on. Obviously, nobody plays mistake free poker, but I couldn't find any major leaks. I've got the SSH starting hands down cold. My PT stats are VP$IP of 15% (I play tight), I only cold call raises with the hands Miller recommends, my flop, turn and river aggression factors are all over 2 (so I'm aggressive as well as tight), and my Went to Showdown percentage is at 30 percent (so I don't overplay my hands when I miss flops or am obviously beat or don't have the pot odds to chase). All that jazz.

But I did discover a leak, afterall: game selection. In my PT database of 11K hands, all at 1/2 limit on Party, I found that 3.3 players on average see the flop and that 50 percent of all pots are raised preflop. According to Carson's game categorization criteria in _The Complete Book of Texas Hold'em_ this is a Tight Aggressive game and is classified as a "tough game" not even "marginal" in terms of profitability. So...What gives? I've read in many places on these forums and over at Matthew Hilger's site how crushable Party Poker's micro limit games are. After realizing just how consistently awful these numbers were I tried to find a softer game by working down the list of 1/2 games on party last night. I'd open a table and watch for 10-15 hands and move on to the next one. On every table it was the same: 2-3 players seeing the flop, most pots raised preflop.

Another observation-- it seems that games with these types of loose/tight and passive/aggressive stats are more suitable to the types of game HPFAP and middle limit holdem are geared at defeating, not so much SSH.

Any comments or thoughts?

[wyoak]

dunno if they're all that tough, but in my limited experience they're definitely a whole lot tighter. I played a few hundred hands of slightly losing and very boring poker and switched to 1/2 6max. much more profitable and much more fun imo.

[mojobluesman]

I find the games fairly tight also, but I don't see nearly the type of aggression pre-flop that you are talking about. I'm losing $30 after 6K hands. I also have very good general stats, though I have made some very minor adjustments to the tight table starting hand requirements from SSH based on the number of limpers etc... I think that helps.

One of the things you might want to do is see how many times you have been dealt AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, and AK relative to expectations. These are far and away the most profitable hands and contribute most of the profits over the long haul. If you have been getting these hands less frequently than expected, that could account for some of the problem. However, if you are getting them as often as expected (or more often) then there is probably some problem.

You may also want to look at small pairs and hands like the A7s-A2s and some other playable speculative hands. I am getting demolished with all these. All the value comes from trips/flushes respectively and if you haven't been catching you will bleed lots of money (at least I am).

[CEE]

[ QUOTE ]
You may also want to look at small pairs and hands like the A7s-A2s and some other playable speculative hands. I am getting demolished with all these. All the value comes from trips/flushes respectively and if you haven't been catching you will bleed lots of money (at least I am).

[/ QUOTE ]

...or maybe you are not playing in the loose/wild tables described in SSHE, and small pocket pairs and suited A no kicker do not have the appropriate implied odds to be played.

Personally, I'm sticking with .5/1 or 2/4 because the 1/2 action is so much tighter, it just doesn't suit my style of play.

On a sour note, check out the downward slope of the "saw flop" percentage in games I've played at .5/1 over the last year.

[Shillx]

Yeah but an R squared value of .043 means that just 4.3% of the varience can be explained by the equation. This is pretty much insignificant.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but an R squared value of .043 means that just 4.3% of the varience can be explained by the equation. This is pretty much insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. This just means it does not explain much variance. This has nothing to do with the signifigance level of the RHS variable's coefficient. That being said, it is certainly possible that the variable is not significant, and while a low R sq can suggest this, you have to look at the significant level to see if there is a relationship.

Not trying to slam you here Brad -- this is actually a VERY common mistake in interpreting OLS results. In the research I do, public opinion, I will often get insanely low R sqs like this but have very significant variables.

[CEE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but an R squared value of .043 means that just 4.3% of the varience can be explained by the equation. This is pretty much insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. This just means it does not explain much variance. This has nothing to do with the signifigance level of the RHS variable's coefficient. That being said, it is certainly possible that the variable is not significant, and while a low R sq can suggest this, you have to look at the significant level to see if there is a relationship.

Not trying to slam you here Brad -- this is actually a VERY common mistake in interpreting OLS results. In the research I do, public opinion, I will often get insanely low R sqs like this but have very significant variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Greg! Actually, my intention was not to illustrate a "significant" trend... just one that I had observed over the last year in my games. Seemed like there were looser games a year ago, and in my experience at least, there were.

I believe that more players are becoming marginally better over time. I have a buddy who plays in my home game and also on Party .5/1... I let him borrow a couple books after he had a bad PP downswing. He was a fish... The books helped him tighten up pre-flop, but he didn't have tha patience to really learn the post-flop concepts well. He doesn't like trying to calculate pot odds, or playing aggressively, and goes with his gut all the time ("I could feel the flush coming"). I think he's typical of many players out there. They've read a little bit, maybe even god forbid(!) this board, but they're out there to have fun damnit.

Total digression, I know.

C

[Greg J]

What is the significance level of the RHS variable (time)?

T score? P value?

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
But I did discover a leak, afterall: game selection

[/ QUOTE ]

imho, there's no more important factor than finding worse people to play against.

this has been discussed a zillion times before, but my personal opinion is that I'd much rather play 6 max at Party than full ring. besides being more profitable, it's much more fun, for me anyway.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I did discover a leak, afterall: game selection

[/ QUOTE ]

imho, there's no more important factor than finding worse people to play against.

this has been discussed a zillion times before, but my personal opinion is that I'd much rather play 6 max at Party than full ring. besides being more profitable, it's much more fun, for me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on the 6max part, disagree a little on the finding bad player part .. I think at micros 95% of tables are profitable, and being able to play in a lot of various conditions is always a good thing

I think table/seat selection is best suited for higher stakes where the average player is much better than the average at 1/2 ... granted if you are at a terrible table, or terrible seat you should leave .. but most games are fine

also will people please quit suggestioning ppl to jump straight to 2/4 .. its a tougher game, though more profitable for solid players, if you aren't beating 1/2 likely you'll be in trouble at 2/4