Autorate rules debate for PokerTracker Omaha

[toots]

Have you run any regression analyses on these data?

Pretty kewl, just the same.

[GooperMC]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, are these all full tables or are some 6-max?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of the numbers are from 10 person tables.

[ QUOTE ]
The VPIP numbers seem high to me but it could be a function of the limits. Have you done the analysis by limit? (I would suspect the VPIP numbers fall as the limits rise. The winning players in my database (300+ hands) tend to have VPIP in the 20s for 3/6 and 5/10.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't do any analysis based on limits because I wouldn't have a large enough sample for anything other then .5/1. Once my sample gets larger I will break it down by limit.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you run any regression analyses on these data?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not 100% sure what you mean by regression analyses. If you mean have I compared these numbers to previous numbers I have not. I was planning to do the analysis every 25K hands , so I am going to do it again when I hit 50K hands.

Anyone have a good hypothsis about why W$SF can vary by almost 10% when VP$IP stays about the same? It seem to me that for bad players W$SF should be high with a low W$SD because they will play questionable hands all the way to showdown. However that is not what my numbers are saying. Any ideas?

[Mendacious]

I predominantly play PL and I am pretty new to this program but not to PL Omaha/8. My observations from the data that I have seen thus far:

I think there are 3 fairly valuable indicators, VP$IP, W$WSF, and W$SD.

I think you can be a successful player with a pretty wide range of VP$IP (15-30%) provided that your W$WSF approaches 30% or above, and your W$SD approaches 65%.

In PL (as well as probably limit) I think what seperates the good from bad players is the percentages that you take a hand at showdown and actually win more than you put into the pot...I am not sure if W$SD really shows this. For instance if you get quartered at Showdown how is this taken into account. Does anybody know if this is taken into account by any statistic, and if it could be. If so, I think this program because WAY more useful for Omaha. My goal as a player as a PL omaha player is to be < 30 for VP$IP, over 33% for W$WSF and over 70% W$SD. I am certain that when I play in this area I am winning. I would love to have the data on getting quartered etc to further refine good and bad play.

LOQTIS-- I like your rating system but at least in Pot Limit I think W$SF is too important not to include, as it starts to show you how well someone is outplaying people after the flop. In PL there are many many pots that don't get shown down (as opposed to limit where virtually every pot is shown down-- at least at lower limits) so I think getting your W$WSF up is critical for success in PL. If you check these numbers especially in PL I think you will start to see a really high correlation between getting this number over 30 (assuming other numbers are good) and winning.

Any comments?

[L0QTiS]

I'm completely open to any suggestions on incorporating W$SF into the mix. My own focus is on limit specifically, so I can certainly see the need for a different or modified model for PL. I think at this point I do not think that limit stats carry over well to pot limit stats.

My initial intent was to get a quick ruleset to be able to determine player tendencies in the fewest number of hands. Speaking for myself, at least in the short run I've had with PTO so far, most of the players I sit down with are unknowns with a smattering of known players. Obviously, as the database grows, the information improves. My goal is not entirely to differentiate a winning player from a loosing player (although in theory, over time, the ideal system should be able to predict this), but rather to quickly determine the looser players vs tighter, etc. This is one thing I don’t want to lose sight over.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you can be a successful player with a pretty wide range of VP$IP (15-30%) provided that your W$WSF approaches 30% or above, and your W$SD approaches 65%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’d frame this slightly differently. I think you can be a successful player in spite of having higher VPIP #s if you are playing well postflop.

I agree with the W$SF, but think there are several different styles that can all be successful. Some are more aggressive and will have higher W$SF (35+) and lower W$SD (60+), as it relies slightly more on bluffing/eliminating opponents to win shares of pots. Other styles are more nut-peddler-ish and will have lower but still good W$SF #s (30-35) but higher W$SD (~70).

I’ve run some correlation coefficients and quartile analysis on the data-mining I have so far, and compared data on some of the players I respect the most, and as you’d expect the indicators all support the conventional wisdom ala Ray Zee.

Ie.
Tighter is better, up to a point

Play on flop/turn/river is most important and outweights preflop “looseness” mistakes

Raising preflop is not very correlated with winrate, and can even be harmful

The game is about showing down winning hands at the river

You make the most when you correctly call or bet post flop.

--
I’ve found a few other nuggets, but mainly its nothing earthshattering.

[UseThePeenEnd]

[ QUOTE ]
For Omaha, statistics such as WtSD% and W$SD (As well as % of pot won stats such 1/4 vs. 3/4 vs. scooping) provide helpful information, but I'm concerned about the sample size required to make these numbers really relevant. These stats converge so slowly that I'm afraid without extensive data mining they would only have limited usefulness.


[/ QUOTE ]

succinct, and IMO, accurate.

[Mendacious]

I agree with what you said Gergery. Interstingly, I have seen very few players who have played a lot of hands and have W$WSF over 35%-- almost none, and, although virtually every table I sit at has a W$SD table average of around 60%, it is rare to see someone over 70% for W$SD who has played a lot of hands, which I take to mean that variations for this statistic are not that wide.

Also, at least in Pot limit O8, there is a lot of treading water, picking up small pots, splitting etc., to stay level, and most of the money is made and lost on huge scoops and 3/4--1/4 pot splits. I'd love to see some good stats which incorporate pot bets or pot calls that are profitable/unprofitable-- which tells more than W$SD.

[gergery]

My comments are more limit related, as I don’t play much PLO8. But I’d think W$SF would be lower in PLO8 due to the implied odds. And the stats would be alittle less helpful since the amount won per hand won can vary a lot more, and the stats are mainly hand-based (ie. denominator is per flop etc.)

[Mendacious]

Actually I would expect W$WSF to be higher and W$SD to be lower in PL, the reason being far fewer hands are shown down in PL because aggressive betting actually chases players. Conversely, because showdowns involve substantially money contributed by only two players betting big, you can almost never get quartered in PL and show a profit, so on a much higher percentage of showdowns, only one guy actually profited. (Omaha8)