|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: In the library with the
[ QUOTE ]
Here is my/her question. Having zero knowledge of the types of games but precise knowledge of the win rate (for what most would agree is a fairly large sample), how accurately can we estimate her S-D and/or confidence level ? [/ QUOTE ] I think that a typical SD for limit holdem is around 15BB/100 hands. It won't be precise. Hers could be higher or lower, but given your description of her play (not pushing marginal edges, etc.) I would expect her SD to be lower if anything. In other words, I think we can safely assume that 15BB/100 is a worst-case scenario SD. [ QUOTE ] Using the 3-6 holdem as an example (since it has the largest sample size) . . . 3- 6 limit holdem: 145,000 hands, W/R 2.07 big bets/100 hands What is the consensus estimate of the following - 1. Likelyhood that this person is at least a 1 big bet/100 hand winning player ? - I am under the assumption that this is a virtual certainty. [/ QUOTE ] Using the 15BB/100 estimate for SD, I get 99.7% [ QUOTE ] 2. Likelyhood that she is at least a 1.25 big bet/100 hand winning player ? - I have this as upwards of 95% but I am very open to the idea that I am dead wrong about this one. [/ QUOTE ] I get 98.1% [ QUOTE ] 3. 1.5 b-b/100 ? - Far more likely than not (75% ?) but this is the one about which I'll not be at all suprised to find I was mistaken in my estimate. [/ QUOTE ] I get 92.6% [ QUOTE ] 4. If we can formulate a reasonable guess as to her S-D that would be great as well. - If it helps, she is nothing if not solid though by her own admission somewhat risk averse; her win rate is (and likely will continue to be) held down by this unwillingness to push small edges. [/ QUOTE ] See above. Also, here is a SD poll in the archives that shows that the median SD for the respondants was about 15 or 16 BB/100. I hope this gives you some idea of what her true winrate might be. It would be good if someone could verify my numbers just to be sure. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
< Thumbs up >
The 90%+ confidence level for "at least 1.5/100" is not what I was expecting; I was anticipating 70-75 and was leaning toward thinking it might be as high as 80 but 92.6 is a very pleasant suprise.
Thanks a bunch. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] BTW, re. win rates for 3-6 . . . What figures have been tossed around here in terms of the highest possible ? I would think while there are a few "freaks" who might attain some monster numbers plaing one table, 3 per 100 would be about as high as a multi-tabler could realistically expect to attain; am I correct ? . . . Or am I confusing MY potential with that of others ? Both she and I play mostly at STARS so assume no rake rebate(s), which leads then to the question - How much rake does the typical winning 3-6 player pay per 100 hands ? - I have always assumed something in the neighborhood of $10/100 for a full (9 or 10 handed) game; does this sound about right ? If so, a 25% rebate would be nice and would add substantially to the bottom line but would not turn too many losing players into winners, nor would it be enough to make a very small winner want to contemplate "quitting his (or her) day job". Happy holidays, - Chris * Note: I emboldened "winning" since in all but the rarest of instances winners pay less rake then non-winners. Also, her wont to pass on marginally profitable opportunities will lead to her paying even less rake. When I asked how much rake I was thinking of a 1.5-2.0 bb/100 winner whose style would best be described as middle of the road as regards agression. |
|
|