|
|
#21
11-10-2005, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: LUCK INDICATORS...PLEASE HELP!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if you were in the midst of a 200 bb downswing and you were getting and winning all hands 2pair or better at the baseline rate you would know you were playing bad and leaking chips somewhere [/ QUOTE ] admittedly my statements were a bit over the top but your response is utterly pointless. a guy named KRISHANLEONG did this analysis for shorthanded games and it proved useful for many. the same would be true for full games. wrong. [ QUOTE ] BUT if you were getting less of these hands and/or winning at a lower than expected rate with these hands you would need not tinker w/ your game due to the fact tthat your loss could be explained through "bad luck" and not a leak! [/ QUOTE ] wrong again. I guess you don't need to pass any logical argument test questions to get into MENSA... [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#22
11-10-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
very interesting
why is running bad a better expalanation for poor results out of the blinds (as opposed to other positions) than playing bad? over my 1st run i was (.11) BB and winning .01 SB ... now im (.30), (.20) respectively. a large portion of my losses can be attributed directly to the blinds.
|
|
#23
11-10-2005, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: LUCK INDICATORS...PLEASE HELP!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] if you were in the midst of a 200 bb downswing and you were getting and winning all hands 2pair or better at the baseline rate you would know you were playing bad and leaking chips somewhere [/ QUOTE ] admittedly my statements were a bit over the top but your response is utterly pointless. a guy named KRISHANLEONG did this analysis for shorthanded games and it proved useful for many. the same would be true for full games. wrong. [ QUOTE ] BUT if you were getting less of these hands and/or winning at a lower than expected rate with these hands you would need not tinker w/ your game due to the fact tthat your loss could be explained through "bad luck" and not a leak! [/ QUOTE ] wrong again. I guess you don't need to pass any logical argument test questions to get into MENSA... [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] And I see the "quote" function is giving you troubles too... [ QUOTE ] admittedly my statements were a bit over the top but your response is utterly pointless. a guy named KRISHANLEONG did this analysis for shorthanded games and it proved useful for many. the same would be true for full games [/ QUOTE ] Your "statements" form the basis of your argument. If they're inaccurate, your whole argument is worthless. My statements, on the other hand, are entirely correct. I am very familiar with Krishan's work. Having been around here for several years, I've seen a lot of very good analysis done here. Coming in and criticizing everyone, and then running home like a little kid ("I'm going to get this information and not share it with you") is not going to get you anywhere. If you want to come in here and whip out your e-peen and try to impress us with how smart you are, you're definitely in the wrong place. One - there are many people here who are smarter than you; and two - the only people you're going to impress are the same people who see a maniac win 50BB in an hour and then think that said maniac is the "best player they've ever seen". Are you by chance from Toronto? <font color="white"> cinnamonwind/matador reference</font>
|
|
#24
11-10-2005, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: very interesting
[ QUOTE ]
why is running bad a better expalanation for poor results out of the blinds (as opposed to other positions) than playing bad? over my 1st run i was (.11) BB and winning .01 SB ... now im (.30), (.20) respectively. a large portion of my losses can be attributed directly to the blinds. [/ QUOTE ] Correlation isn't causation, so I wouldn't call it an explanation. More correct to say that poor blind results are consistent with running bad. A large percentage of the hands a tight player plays are blind hands. Variance is also higher in the blinds. If your results are due to variance then it should tend to show up in the blinds first. But that doesn't mean you aren't playing badly. If your overall results were poor but you were doing ok in the blinds, you would be less justified to think it was due to variance than otherwise.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
