My Downswing Has Hit 300 BB

[bicyclekick]

Wait a sec. I've been running pretty crappy this month...and my numbers are similar to his.

I averaged 6.5 players per table and have played 38000 hands.

26.8 vpip, 50.71 won$whensawflop, 39.73 wenttosd, 55.97wonsd, 20.34 pfr.

Are you saying I'm running very hot? Last month I ran hot and here were my numbers.

30k hands, 21vpip 48 won$atsd, 41/58 sd #'s 16pfr avg 7.62 players per table.

This is pretty much all >= 30/60.

/edit ahhh i bet it's from all of the heads up i've been playing, schneids too. I bet that inflates those #'s quite a bit.

Now I'm curious to look at the aggregate.

200,000 hands

20.51 vpip, 44 won$whensawflop 38/55 sd #'s 14.3 %pfr. 7.95 avg players per table. These #'s include 15/30.

[pokerrookie]

Take a break from playing. Read the May internet mag. Good article there.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a break from playing. Read the May internet mag. Good article there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic that I wrote that article?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
A 21.5% VPIP is a little bit high, especailly since you're *not* especially aggressive in blind stealing/blind defense. My guess is that you're limping in with some hands too early, and probably overlimping in some cases where you'd be better off raising. These mistakes are compounding postflop since you're not taking initiative in enough hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been a big supporter of having a higher VPIP so I gave this some thought. I think the only hands I'm limping in with early that are debatable would be limping Axs and small pairs from early position. Otherwise from EP my play is pretty much standard.

[ QUOTE ]
The W$SD is also a little bit low. I'm not a fascist about W$SD, but think it needs to be a bit higher if you're not playing especially aggressively postflop, which you aren't. As a general rule, I think you want to target a W$SD plus a W$WSF in the range of 90% (yours is 85%). Honestly, it looks like you're playing a guessing game a lot of the time postflop, without doing quite enough to define your hand or to pick up some pots that you might not rightfully deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea I find interesting, and in looking through all my play 2/4 is the only limit that I don't meet your 90% guideline at.

[MicroBob]

Adding to the two together is an interesting idea.


I think in full games that reasonable starting numbers are 33 and 55 (not quite 90...but close enough I think).
This is for more straight-forward play at 2/4 and 3/6 full.

If you are going to stray too far from the 33 and 55 guidelines you need to ALREADY be a proven winner at that limit and know what you're doing.

In other words....if you're a newer player and you show 29 and 58 or something I would say that you are almost definitely folding on the river too much....even though some established winners might have numbers in this range.


An equally common problem is something like 40 and 45 which almost always means you are calling-down WAY too much.
even though there ARE players who do quite well with WtSD of 38-40 it's just not a good range for many players.



Goodguy made some good points in this thread.

Basically - at some point you need decide that it's not ONLY 'running' bad but, unfortunately, is also playing bad.


I'm the king of laggy call-downs and thus have had more down-swings of the 200+BB magnitude than I should have.


Thankfully, these are fixable problems. I believe I am finally proving that.


Work on some of those hands that you're taking to show-down.
It appears to be a major leak.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only hands I'm limping in with early that are debatable would be limping Axs

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pairs are fine but I'm 80% sure you are losing money with A6s-A2s. Filter your tracker data for these hands UTG and UTG+1.

Krishan

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only hands I'm limping in with early that are debatable would be limping Axs

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pairs are fine but I'm 80% sure you are losing money with A6s-A2s. Filter your tracker data for these hands UTG and UTG+1.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be onto something here. None of my Axs hands except for the rare anomaly were winning for me from EP. This motivated me to look over all my PT stats by position, and I think I found a couple minor leaks (playing just one or two more hands, than I should be in each position), but still helpful.

[stoxtrader]

putting a value on what the numbers should look like does not make sense if you do not include the limit.

the higher the limit, the higher both numbers will be on avg, but you won't automatically be winning more because on average your are risking more to win less, relatively speaking.

[pokerrookie]

Indeed...I thought this fact is why you allowed yourself to write the original post. Hope it turns around for you.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Meb,

A request, please post the number of hands, the number of straights, flushes, full houses, the % of the time they win, your one pair win % and your 2 pair win %.

It would be better to post the good and the bad for comparison sake. This is one way to see how you have been running.

You get a straight, flush or full about once every 200 hands. (Actually a little less but the aproximation is fine) So for 20K hands you should have 100 of each. All premiums should win at least 80%. You one pair win % should be around 44% and two pair around 55%.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

So I just took a look at your post in HUSH about this. I saw your newly adjusted stats to 1:170 hands as well.

Given that, during my downswing, I got 64% as many premium hands as I should have. Also, my flushes only W$SD 50% of the time, one pair only 20% and two pair only 48%.

Before my downswing, I got 99% as many premium hands as I should have, they all won at right around 80%, one pair hands at 40% and two pair hands at 54%. Very interesting.