#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
But why doesn't your winrate alone tell you that? [/ QUOTE ] Comparing your results to your predicted winrate will help indicate whether you can attribute it to running well or poorly or normally. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But why doesn't your winrate alone tell you that? [/ QUOTE ] Comparing your results to your predicted winrate will help indicate whether you can attribute it to running well or poorly. [/ QUOTE ] What he said. -SmileyEH |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: wtf !@#%
I agree that I am suprised that you can win over even 2bb/100, let alone over 3.5bb/100, with a W$SD under 50.
I think it could be both running well and table selection, and remember that you still do not know your true win rate within 1.5bb/100. Great job though on your success to date, especially at 5/10 full. EDIT: Sorry sthief this was a response to Jerome. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if you wouldn't mind telling [/ QUOTE ] Is this a joke? [/ QUOTE ] Sponger, this one's really funny. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: wtf !@#%
[ QUOTE ]
total hands : 72301 5/10 party (april/04- sept/04) vip: 19.11 wsf: 35.74 W$SD: 49.68 (ouch! this is embarrassing) formula says im -0.33/100 according to ptrack, this is off by over 4.00/100bb does this mean that im a fish (with good table selection) that is running well? good thing i havent played for like 5 months. although im thinking about playing 15/30. [/ QUOTE ] Please note that this formula is specific to the Party 15/30 game. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
Outstanding post. I think there a lot of ways we can tweak this model to make it much more accurate. I'm a statistics major with a lot of regression and data analysis experience. If you want, I'd be interested in helping you with this. I sent you a PM. I tried to determine my optimal VPIP given my W$WSF and W$SD using your model (simple max/min calculus problem). It came out to be 36.91% with a maximum BB/100 value of 7.86. These numbers don't really mean much as the model is still in works but I think it means the coefficients for VPIP are off. How did you go about modeling VPIP as a quadratic? [/ QUOTE ] You can't do that because VPIP isn't independent of the other metrics. e.g. if your VPIP increases, your W$WSF and W$SD will fall. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But why doesn't your winrate alone tell you that? [/ QUOTE ] Comparing your results to your predicted winrate will help indicate whether you can attribute it to running well or poorly. [/ QUOTE ] What he said. -SmileyEH [/ QUOTE ] I don't necessarily know if that's true. The stats that go into predicting your BB/100 are also going to be influenced by running well or poorly. To a certain extent, I think that people are missing the point here - the formula, at least in its current iteration, is intended more as a cutsey aside, and the coefficients might or might not prove to be reliable given a more robust model. The bigger picture is that the formula provides some statistical validation to our sense of what makes for a winning hold 'em player - figuring out how to get down and dirty to win pots, while avoiding paying off with second best hands. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But why doesn't your winrate alone tell you that? [/ QUOTE ] Comparing your results to your predicted winrate will help indicate whether you can attribute it to running well or poorly. [/ QUOTE ] What he said. -SmileyEH [/ QUOTE ] I don't necessarily know if that's true. The stats that go into predicting your BB/100 are also going to be influenced by running well or poorly. To a certain extent, I think that people are missing the point here - the formula, at least in its current iteration, is intended more as a cutsey aside, and the coefficients might or might not prove to be reliable given a more robust model. The bigger picture is that the formula provides some statistical validation to our sense of what makes for a winning hold 'em player - figuring out how to get down and dirty to win pots, while avoiding paying off with second best hands. [/ QUOTE ] While thats true, I think (more of a gut feeling) that winrate is the last of the relevant statistics to converge. If the "formula" converges within a confidence interval at say 20k hands, as opposed to winrate at 50k hands then it is suddenly a useful tool for use as a benchmark. But again, only a hypothesis. -SmileyEH |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: wtf !@#%
well, at 72,000 hands, in that super tight, low variance game it's more like .5 bb/100 (14/sqrt(720))
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Predicting BB/100 based on other stats
[ QUOTE ]
screw you guys. [/ QUOTE ] swear I wasn't mocking you. I genuinely wanted to know. you can PM it to me if you don't mind sharing but don't want to post it. I like adding data points in my head of where different people stand. it gives me a better understanding of the types of winrates that are possible, who's achieving them, etc. most people don't like to share so I don't have many 15/30 data points |
|
|