15,211 hands and -$1515.33 later... - Page 2

#11 10-31-2005, 04:11 PM

Fair enough. I can't talk about what my exact situation is and that alone should tell you exactly what is going on.

What I'm trying to figure out in this post is if I actually AM a good player. If I have glaring holes in my play that people can point out from my statistics, then I'd like to know. I don't have the Omaha knowledge to properly analyze my shorthanded stats.

Sorry for the conflicting statements. I need help with my game. Simple as that.

EDIT: And by the way, I'd love to talk about variance. Like I said earlier, doesn't thing amount of loss seem to be outside the threshold of being a simple variance? I'd say something must be fundamentally wrong with game in order to explain it. And that thing is what I'm desperately trying to figure out. I'm out of ideas, so I'm looking to the experts.

Wintermute · #12 10-31-2005, 05:54 PM

Please report your standard deviation of winrates for each scenario. Without that info, anything anybody says about what game you should or shouldn't play is pure speculation, because 5-15k hands is too small of a sample size, particularly for short-handed where presumably your stdev is higher.

You provide these numbers and I'll calculate a couple confidence intervals for you to think about and judge your early results with a little more perspective.

#13 10-31-2005, 07:05 PM

For my ring game sessions:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 7.2495 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 12.2622 Big Bets

For my shorthanded game sessions:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 9.0155 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 13.0345 Big Bets

Sigh... pretty consistent.

Wintermute · #14 10-31-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For my ring game sessions:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 7.2495 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 12.2622 Big Bets

For my shorthanded game sessions:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 9.0155 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 13.0345 Big Bets

Sigh... pretty consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
From your OP, looks like you're at -0.5 BB/100 for full table and -8.5 BB/100 for shorthanded. 95% confidence intervals around those winrates, given your stdev's, are (approx):

full ring: [-0.5 +/- 2*12.26/sqrt(40)] = [-4.38, 3.38]

shorthanded: [-8.5 +/- 2*13.03/sqrt(40)] = [-12.62, -4.38]

There's a 95% chance that these intervals contain your true winrates in respective situations.

What this means is that you definitely are sucking hard at shorthanded. There's less than a 1:1000 chance that you're truly a breakeven player in shorthanded play and have just been suffering from a spell of bad luck over these 4k hands.

In full ring play, however, you can see that your winrate could reasonably fall in a fairly wide range around breakeven.

I'd recommend dropping shorthanded completely, focus on full ring and see if your results improve gradually.

Beavis68 · #15 10-31-2005, 08:31 PM

So, you are a prop player that has to play short handed tables? I would say cut back on the multi-tabling then.

dcasper70 · #16 10-31-2005, 08:53 PM

Feel free to dissect my stats too... I know, blah, blah, sample size, blah, blah...

Shorthanded Games(6-max tables since May):
Total Hands: 3,623
Vol. Put $ in Pot: 30.94%
Won $When Saw Flop: 34.65% (You're beating me here)
Amount Won: 122 BB
Win Rate Per 100 Hands 3.36 BB
Went To Showdown: 37.64%
Won $ At Showdown: 64.08% (was over 70 2 months ago [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )
Pre-flop Raise: 8.00%
Limp/Call Reraise PF: 0.00%
Won High: 13.06%
Won Low: 5.33%
Scooped: 10.24%
---You are kicking my a$$ here, where's your profit???-----
Folded SB to Steal: 69.23%
Folded BB to Steal: 58.97%
Fold BB to Steal HU: 57.14%
Att. To Steal Blinds: 17.87% <----- hmmm...
Overall Post-Flop Aggression Factor: 1.71
Flop Actions:
-Raise: 5.52%
-Bet: 57.93%
-Call: 13.45%
-Check: 13.10%
-Fold: 4.83% <<-- I need to think about that one...
Flop AF: 1.35

Where did you and Winter find the Standard Deviation info???

Wintermute · #17 10-31-2005, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Where did you and Winter find the Standard Deviation info???

[/ QUOTE ]
"Session info" tab, "more details".

Buzz · #18 10-31-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz, can you please try to analyze my shorthanded stats?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Wolf - Pretty hard to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
Any tips will be a huge help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your main problem is you’re being out-played by too many of your opponents.
• (1) That may be partly because of the limited range of starting hands you play, the cards you’re likely to hold are somewhat predictable.
• (2) It may be partly because your opponents are simply very strong players. (Short handed games players tend to be strong players, maybe because the weaker players don’t last).

If you are too predictable, then I think you have to take steps to become more unpredictable. Expand the range of starting hands you play and make random pre-flop raises.

What I mean by random pre-flop raises is something like this: key off the first card dealt to you. If it is a particular suit, say clubs, always raise when you have a playable hand, regardless of the quality of your playable hand.

For example, showing the cards in the order they are dealt to you, raise with
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], a hand that actually merits a pre-flop raise, but also raise with
2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], a marginal starting hand for short handed play.
Choose another suit, say spades as a never raise suit. For example, when you’re dealt
A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], just limp. Also just limp when you’re dealt
2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

Your goal here is to make your play unpredicatable, and the easiest place to do that in Omaha-8 is on the very first betting round. When the first card dealt to you is a diamond, do one thing, and when the first card dealt to you is a heart, do another.

You’d also like your play to be unpredictable on the second betting round and on the third and fourth betting rounds, but it’s more difficult to disguise your play after the flop. You can do a bit more bluffing than in a full game, especially on some flops - but you can get in trouble bluffing too much in Omaha-8. (There's a much greater chance an opponent has a board fit than in Texas hold 'em).

I suggested, several paragraphs back, that you expand the range of starting hands you play. This is contrary to the general advice to tighten up which is normally excellent advice for losing players. But in your particular case, I think you’re currently playing too limited a range of starting hands for your own good in these short handed games against strong opponents.

You still shouldn’t like starting hands with middle cards. In fact, hands with all middle cards are even worse short handed than they are in a full game. You simply don’t hit the flop often enough and when you do, and when you end up with a winner, it’s usually a winner for high only and you usually end up splitting the pot with low. Re-draws are not as important as in full game play, so that there should be less emphasis on four coordinated cards. (You should much rather have A389 than 6789 or 7899).

Be alert for the opportunity to get one-on-one with an opponent when you have a good one-on-one hand. In other words, raise if your raise will knock out other opponents so as to isolate you against an opponent, particularly a blind. When you do this, you usually want to act after the opponent you’re isolating. If isolation is impossible or unreasonable, then don’t try to isolate an opponent. (Don’t try a tactic that isn’t likely to work).

Just a few ideas for you to consider.

Even if you’re a strong player, it’s difficult to beat the rake in short-handed limit games against other strong opponents. Chips simply keep getting drained off the table and dropped down the collection slot with the result that nobody makes any money except the casino.

Buzz

#19 10-31-2005, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
From your OP, looks like you're at -0.5 BB/100 for full table and -8.5 BB/100 for shorthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ribbo,

Where did you get those rates? I follow the confidence level calculations, but I don't see how you came to -.5 and -8.5 BB/100. From my simple understanding he's lost 18.68 in 4096 full ring hands. That's roughly -$.5 per 100 hands and thus approximately -.1 BB/100 at a 2/4 limit level? No? It really doesn't change the end analysis, I just want to make sure I fully understand the discussion.

Wintermute · #20 10-31-2005, 11:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Ribbo,

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]

Where did you get those rates? I follow the confidence level calculations, but I don't see how you came to -.5 and -8.5 BB/100. From my simple understanding he's lost 18.68 in 4096 full ring hands. That's roughly -$.5 per 100 hands and thus approximately -.1 BB/100 at a 2/4 limit level? No? It really doesn't change the end analysis, I just want to make sure I fully understand the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. It should have been .1, not .5. My bad. The winrate for shorthanded play is right, though.