Predicting BB/100 based on other stats

[Brainwalter]

[ 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.

[SmileyEH]

[ 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

[Perseus]

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.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you wouldn't mind telling

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sponger, this one's really funny.

[Justin A]

[ 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.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ 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.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ 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.

[SmileyEH]

[ 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

[sthief]

well, at 72,000 hands, in that super tight, low variance game it's more like .5 bb/100 (14/sqrt(720))

[sthief]

[ 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