Question for krishan re: "running good/bad" theory

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't how AA and KK perform usually a pretty good indicator of how well you've been running?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehh...My AKs was 0% W$SD and my AQs was 13% W$SD over my last 5k hands but I was still running extremely well, so I'm fairly sure just looking at AA/KK isn't that strong of an indicator.

[/ QUOTE ]


Neither of those hands are AA or KK [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

But seriously, in the grand scheme of things, I think the most costly things are 1)missed big pairs and 2) missed big draws. If you are within whatever range is considered "average" I think you are running fine, although sthief seems to disagree.

[stripsqueez]

when you hit a big losing streak its enevitable that you will wonder whether it is the usual thing that happens in the game or is it you playing bad but i think the question is something of an illusion

players who lose at a small rate will experience very similar swings to players who win at a small rate - its often said that 100BB's of my 300BB downswing was caused by tilting - thats a rubbish analysis - assuming you did make a bunch of bad decisions its not true that the actual cost of those bad decisions was 100BB's at least not in what we would call sklansky dollar terms

i think you can draw security from the bottom line over a huge sample of hands - ultimately the best security is to be intimate enough with the workings of the game to know that your doing the right thing - pretty much everything else is wank

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[krishanleong]

You really get premiums (straight, flush, full) every 200 hands. It's only 170 if you use the number of hands from the misc tab without the checkbox checked. This is because 15% of hands don't have a flop and aren't counted on that tab.

You are a bit short on each even so.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy it. how you do with these hands is what matters. when I get a hot run of cards, I'll sometimes get a lot of those hands busted and lose a ton of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the best anyone has proposed so far. It's not impeccable and of course it doesn't take into account the hands that don't make it to showdown. But in general it's pretty accurate.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
or get a bunch of big hands and not have anyone give you action

[/ QUOTE ]

Another way I've thought of doing this is to find the average BB/won per premium over a large number of hands. Then you can just multiply the number of premiums by the expected BB per to find out if you are getting more action or less than you should. This also has the advantage of taking win % into account automatically.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or get a bunch of big hands and not have anyone give you action

[/ QUOTE ]

or get the big hands, and lose the big pots when you DO get action

[/ QUOTE ]

This is taken into account in my theory. I use Win % at showdown to make sure premiums are winning at the usual rate.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't how AA and KK perform usually a pretty good indicator of how well you've been running?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mediocre way to tell how you are doing. It is also contained within my theory as AA and KK show up under misc tab nearly all the time.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked Krishan's analysis, but I think there are a number of holes in it in terms of proving one is running good or bad.

The effect of a handful of extra premiums is often drowned out by 5% more or less 1 pair hands winning at showdown - simply because the difference in $ won between premiums + 1 pair hands is not great, but the number of 1 pair hands is enormous compared to premiums.

Everyone plays full houses pretty well. The real money is won and lost in the marginal situations - taking the correct A-highs and bottom pairs to showdown, and knowing when to fold top pair, etc. There is far more to be inferred from the amount + quality of 1 pair hands at showdown than premiums IMHO.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very very true. I'll rewrite my good/bad thread because I use this all the time. Top pair should perform at 42-46%. Two pair should perform at 62-66%. Quantity doesn't matter as much since you get so many of them, they tend to even out. Trips should win at 80%. I haven't calculated quantity. Good post.

Krishan

[Guy McSucker]

I posted because I think I've been running very good since January.
Then I checked my numbers out against Krishan's and it appeared I was coming up short in the premium hand department, which is a bit weird.

However, I've been winning with all these big hands at around the 85% rate so I conclude that I'm running good in a different way: not getting big hands cracked.

Guy.

[imported_Jim C]

I'm having the exact opposite happen. Over 10,000 hands of 6max, none the "premiums" have W$SD over 75% for me except fulls.

I'm new to 6max, but I think I've been running horrendously, which is making it difficult to have much confidence in my play. I think my stats seem OK, maybe going to SD a bit high (39%), but my W$SD is only 48%. For the hands under the Misc tab, for W$SD I'm seeing:

One Pair (does this always mean top pair?): 39%
Two Pair : 47%
3 of a Kind: 68%
Straight: 75%
Flush: 75%
Full: 86%

To be honest, I am so frustrated after my session today (about 2500 hands, -170BB), that I'm tempted to give up on poker. I've read everything there is to read, but these last 20,000 hands (the last 10k of which are 6 max), I've lost an astounding $3500 at $3/$6 limit. That's 583BB. Obviously not all of that can be running bad, but if these numbers seem off to you it would be a big encouragement to me! I won at 3/6 full ring at about 2BB/100 for my first 35,000 hands, but I am now a net loser at both full ring and 6max.

Thanks for the great (and timely!) thread.

Best,

Jim