"Rocks" unprofitable at 3/6

[jjacky]

i am sure that a losing player who loses with a vpip of 15 increases his vpip to 18, not changing anything else, will lose even more money. how can someone who loses money with his big hands extract money from marginal hands?

[aK13]

[ QUOTE ]
i am sure that a losing player who loses with a vpip of 15 increases his vpip to 18, not changing anything else, will lose even more money. how can someone who loses money with his big hands extract money from marginal hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

From 15-18, I'm fairly sure you can still just ride the strength of your hand and be above break even.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am sure that a losing player who loses with a vpip of 15 increases his vpip to 18, not changing anything else, will lose even more money. how can someone who loses money with his big hands extract money from marginal hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

From 15-18, I'm fairly sure you can still just ride the strength of your hand and be above break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

you think the 15 - 18 hands are strong enough to make a profit for someone who loses with the 1 - 15 hands???

[lil feller]

I'm only about 16 percent in the 3/6 game, and I'm a 4 bb/100 winner, with a healthy sample. I think the difference is in value gained post flop, and PF variance based on position/situation and not just hole cards.

lf

[Gene2x]

I was collecting data on players for a while on the $2-$4 and $3-$6 tables. I got to the point where I had several thousand hands for a couple of hundred players each. I noticed that most of the rocks and eagles lost money. There were only a handful that made money and they seemed to be pros, playing 3 to 4 tables at a time for 5 or 6 hours a day. The most profitable players in my database had dice icons and played as much as 40% of their hands.

[Webster]

I think that was my post in PT and I THINK it's a problem with post flop play being way to passive.

There is a difference between a Rock and a tight player. Rock is the entire hand. They never raise. tight passive weak.

This was ABOUT 40,000 hands total.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I was collecting data on players for a while on the $2-$4 and $3-$6 tables. I got to the point where I had several thousand hands for a couple of hundred players each. I noticed that most of the rocks and eagles lost money. There were only a handful that made money and they seemed to be pros, playing 3 to 4 tables at a time for 5 or 6 hours a day. The most profitable players in my database had dice icons and played as much as 40% of their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you.

If you're not completely making this up, I think your sample sizes for the individual players are much smaller than several thousand hands.

But perhaps I'm just misinterpreting your phrasing.

[SeaEagle]

Nick, this is consistent with what I would expect to find with small sample sizes ("several thousand hands"). Dice players will tend to be both the biggest winners and the biggest losers in a small sample size. And since 2/3 of all players lose money, "most of the rocks and eagles" will lose money as well as most of everyone else. You would need an enormous database before the people at the top of your database actually represented the best players.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
I was collecting data on players for a while on the $2-$4 and $3-$6 tables. I got to the point where I had several thousand hands for a couple of hundred players each. I noticed that most of the rocks and eagles lost money. There were only a handful that made money and they seemed to be pros, playing 3 to 4 tables at a time for 5 or 6 hours a day. The most profitable players in my database had dice icons and played as much as 40% of their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point here?

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Nick, this is consistent with what I would expect to find with small sample sizes ("several thousand hands"). Dice players will tend to be both the biggest winners and the biggest losers in a small sample size. And since 2/3 of all players lose money, "most of the rocks and eagles" will lose money as well as most of everyone else. You would need an enormous database before the people at the top of your database actually represented the best players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this does make sense.

To be honest, I didn't notice that the phrasing in the post I was responding to left the possibility open that some dice players were among the biggest losers.

But if that's the explanation, the post was deceptive, whether intentionally or not.