"Rocks" unprofitable at 3/6

ds914 · #1 06-26-2005, 07:52 PM

I was on the PokerTracker forum and noticed an interesting post about how "Rocks" were fairing in a user's database. I decided to run a similar test and noticed (not surprisingly) how unprofitable rocks can be.

In my database of about 50K hands of 3/6, the rocks are losing at a clip of 3.94BB/100. Subtract an average rake of 2.26BB/100, and the rocks are losing an average of 1.68BB/100.

Being a rather tight player (~15%VPIP), this provided a nice kick in the butt to convince myself to start loosening up a bit.

Do any of you have similar stats for these players?

jjacky · #2 06-26-2005, 08:02 PM

maybe you can explain me how to get these that?

i datamined pretty many hands and would like to get the information. but unfortunately i am pretty clueless how to use PT [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

ds914 · #3 06-26-2005, 08:06 PM

On the "Preferences" tab, choose "Use Player Filter" and sort for "Rocks" (I use the rating rules from the Poker Tracker Guide), and then go to "Summary."

That should do it...

jjacky · #4 06-26-2005, 08:26 PM

thanks.

my rocks have -0.43 BB / 100 hands. but i redefined that category. it's VPIP < 35%, PFR <5% and 0.7 < agression < 1.5

i had a look at all the categorys and the only clear result was, that the more passive the player were postflop the more they lost. that's no surprise of course, but the difference between agressive / passive was MUCH biger than i would have expected.
i wonder how much of that is because of the style and how much is a result of other factors (the luckier people might appear more agressive just because they found some good hands).

Nick C · #5 06-26-2005, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
(the luckier people might appear more agressive just because they found some good hands).

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be a really big factor, especially over a small sample.

Nick C · #6 06-26-2005, 08:08 PM

I think some of your "rocks" have just been card dead over a small number of hands.

What's the minimum number of hands for the individual players that you included?

pleyya · #7 06-26-2005, 08:17 PM

If you run a search of the profits of TAA:s with vpip 15 youll get a different result. I think its more a matter of passiveness than the tighness. If you run a seach of sLPPs i doubt they have better stats than the rocks.

nrinker · #8 06-26-2005, 11:02 PM

To be brutally honest, your stats mean squat. You don't have nearly enough hands on these players to conclude this (im guessing, but I think im guessing well).

mtdoak · #9 06-26-2005, 11:55 PM

Tight/Passive players are a really whole different breed from Tight/Agressive. They miss alot of value bets, but are usually marginal winners/break even players in the long haul.

ckessel · #10 06-27-2005, 12:32 AM

It's not the VPIP that gets them, it's the aggression. Rocks play only premium hands, but they're not pumping them to get the value they need to make money.

The extra money from 15 to 18 VPIP isn't going to take you from -1BB to 3BB/100. It's maybe 1BB. It's the aggression in pumping your hands that's the difference. Rocks either bleed slowly or gain slowly.