Tight play wins the money? Pokertracker says not!

[donkeyradish]

Anyone who feels like making an informed, non-sarcastic attempt to answer my question, feel free !

Hint: 'Play some more hands and report back' is NOT a helpful response. I was rather hoping people would take a couple of minutes to look at their own numbers, for comparison.

[bisonbison]

how do you survive your trips to the bathroom?

Is this a penis-size joke? Because my first thought was "I read the New Yorker." Please rephrase for clarity and effect.

[sublime]

Is this a penis-size joke? Because my first thought was "I read the New Yorker." Please rephrase for clarity and effect.

of course it was penis size related [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[ThePimpulator]

Must have taken you a while to put that utterly pointless post together. What a waste of time and effort. You could have been rereading Poker For Dummies during that time.

[donkeyradish]

Have another try, you can do it

[donkeyradish]

It doesn't matter because you win, and you don't care by how much?

[Cerril]

I'd like to see the numbers again, but only rating players with >500 hands (and then again with >2500 hands). I suspect what you're seeing is a lot of players that caught very lucky cards and appeared very LA-A even though they were (intentionally or unintentionally) exercising very good hand selection. I always try (without always succeeding) to remember that when I'm looking at someone with especially <100 hands played. Just because their stats show 8/1-0.2 doesn't mean they're a complete rock. They may have just caught completely terrible cards. I can definitely think of rotations where I went thirty, fifty, or even more hands averaging one hand played per round and never one I could raise with (due to position or just bad cards) or even bet postflop

[bisonbison]

There's no proper response to posts of "my sample size is miniscule, but let's pretend it's not" other than "uh, no."

Because you chose to post this here, instead of Poker Theory or Probability (where it belongs), Books/Software, General or the PT forums, you got the brush off. Failure to recognize the brush off as the brush off is only going to prolong the public exposure for your stupid stupid post.

Sometimes you need to think for yourself. If you don't understand why loose-aggressive play is a high variance money sink (particularly given the loose nature of these games), I don't know what to tell you.

[ThePimpulator]

You honestly can't see this is a sample size issue? You've played 8000 hands. You only include people with 30+ hands. How many players is that leaving in your data? My god, you refuse to draw any conclusions about your own winrate because you only have 8000 hands, then you proceed to break down your database into god knows how many groups and examine their winrates? How many players in each category? How many total hands in each category? A few hundred max? And cutting out those with less than 30 hands serves no purpose either. So anyone with 31 hands is in huh? If he is really a 15% player he will play 4.65 hands out of every 31 on average. If he happens to play 8 hands in that 31 hand sample, you've got him as a 25% VP$IP! Wrong category. How many players you think you have in the right category? How many players do you have more than even 100 hands on? Come on, the data you have is completly useless for what youre trying to do. You cant even have any confidence in your categorization of players, nevermind their winrates.

[donkeyradish]

Fair enough, its clear you don't understand what I want to know. I'll re-word the question and ask somewhere else.