One third of the fish and maniacs are winning -- some PT stats

[JasonDB]

I like your thread, just curious how you decided to label each player.

[Blarg]

I think people are getting too stuck on the idea that each player may not be correctly categorized instead of seeing the snapshot for what it is -- an aggregate portrait.

Some will be too loose, some too tight, etc., but in the aggregate those mis-categorizations are more likely to even out than not. For every one guy who should be TP but is classified as TAG because of a brief uncharacteristic run, there is just as likely someone classified as a TP who's really a TAG who got passive or just got a dull run of cards for a while, etc. In the aggregate, it's more likely to average out than not average out.

In the aggregate, the figures have some interest. When drilling down on any one particular person, they will naturally lose value quickly. But that doesn't mean erase the value of the aggregate.

And, of course, it doesn't mean even 1/3 of the fishes will continue to win. 100 hands is a couple of hours, though; it does imply that a solid chunk of fishes can win for hours at a time. One of my fishes has over four hours of play at almost 70% VPIP. That's pretty fishy, and pretty profitable. For a while, anyway. Frankly, seeing it puts me in good spirits! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Blarg]

I forgot to put my criteria in the original post, but it's one I swiped from another poster here a few months ago -- forgot who. Anyway, I cut and pasted the criteria into a new post that was a handful of posts down from the original.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The players that Blarg has identified aren't really LAGs. The 3BB/100h winrate for "LAGs" is actually a winrate for people who looked LAGish over 100-150 hands. Depending on when you looked, the same player could fall into any of these pools. I've had 100-hand hot streaks, cold streaks, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily entirely true. The figures apply to a broader swath, with 100-150 being the baseline.

My fish with the most hands has 544 hands and 8.97 hours.
Top Maniac: 453 hands and 7.48 hours.
Top LAG: 342 hands at 5.88 hours.
Top TP: 914 hands at 15.13 hours.
Top LP: 460 hands at 7.78 hours.
Top TAG: 719 hands at 12.18 hours.

Drilling down to the specifics on every player, the stats become more and more iffy. But some have been watched for quite a while. Considering that while watching players we can sometimes make worthwhile judgments on their play in just a few hands, there is definitely some value in coming to some conclusions in over 100 hands, or over 300 or 500.

Those conclusions won't be definitive by a long shot, but will probably have some value, and in the aggregate, they definitely have some value. Even in just 430k hands, we see that aggressiveness is very much being rewarded, for instance, and tight-passive play barely makes a profit, and only does that for about half the tight-passive players. These stats echo the sentiments about that type of play that are common among accomplished players.

The snapshot is not the last word on anything, but it is an amusing confirmation of some commonly held, sensible notions. It just has to be taken in context.

[Cosimo]

I like Rudbaeck's argument; once a LAG, always a LAG. For the first 100-450 hands, 40% of the LAGs are ahead.

However, I'm still wondering how LAGs can be at +3BB/100h. Whether it's their first 100 hands or their last 100, they shouldn't be winning money. If they are winning money, I think that's nearly proof that being a LAG at these tables is profitable.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still wondering how LAGs can be at +3BB/100h. Whether it's their first 100 hands or their last 100, they shouldn't be winning money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's because of who they're playing. These figures were taken from low limit tables, and bad play isn't punished nearly as much there; it's kind of the norm. Also, a lot of the numbers are from $1/2, which is one of the tighter limits at Party, so a LAG might make tighties fold out of a lot of pots, and when he plays through to the river with crummy cards, the chances are good that he will still just be facing a lot of poor players with crummy cards too, just like him. Hard to get punished by people who are playing the same crap you are.

If I'm ever good enough to get to higher limits, I'm sure the newer data from those levels will reflect LAGs winning less often and winning less money when they do win. And I bet the results for the TAG's start to leap far ahead.

[Cazz]

Thanks for the information.
Several people have questioned the minimum number of hands.

You might try to do a little sensitity study. I.e. determine how sensitive your results are to the number of hands played. If possible, rerun the test w/ 200 and 500 hands as a minimum as see if the results vary much.

My guess if that the LAGs and maniacs will be the most sensitive since they are the smallest groups. If your sample size is too small you have a few "probable maniacs" included in the group. When it is large enough you will have "true maniacs" only. Unfortunately if you make the criteria too large, you will be generating the results for only a few players.

[PuertoKid]

Interesting. I just got 10k hands into PT at the .5/1 tables at PP. By your definition I'm borderline TAG/TP with VP$IP==21.05 and PFR==6.01. BB/100==4.93.

My aggressiveness has definitely increased over the last 1k hands (which corresponds to when I started reading this forum--and playing a couple times on the 2+2 private .5/1 tables ;-). My average BB/100 has also increased from 4.4x to 4.93 since starting on this forum. Too small a sample to mean much, I know. Interesting though, that my aggressiveness and BB/100 have gone up since becoming more aggressive (and reading this forum).

Am I supposed to leave a tip?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I'm still wondering how LAGs can be at +3BB/100h. Whether it's their first 100 hands or their last 100, they shouldn't be winning money. If they are winning money, I think that's nearly proof that being a LAG at these tables is profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible that being a LAG at 2/4 _is_ a winning strategy, as long as there aren't 2 TAGs at the table. Although this is just anecdotal evidence I've very often seen LAGs build up their stack while I am the only moneybag at the table, and that it quite often starts to dwindle once there is another moneybag. When there are two moneybags besides me at the table the LAGs never seem to win consistently.

Over a couple of months many LAGs probably become TAGs, especially if they find this forum. But from my purely unscientific observations it's pretty rare that someone who is classified as a maniac changes classification after the first 100 observed hands. So if I play 500 hands in one evening with one LAG he very rarely changes icon after the first 100 hands.

Ps. Moneybags is the icon TAGs end up with in Bisonbison's autorate system for PokerTracker. Ds.