Winning Player VP$IP 50%

[imported_excel]

Hi,

My studies still show players who play more hands with aggression are taking down the pots at $15/$30

Is this player really going to end up a long term loser? I dont think so, hes the extreme of this style of play but one of many much looser and more aggressive players than the 2+2 winners.

Total hands 25,966
VP$IP 51.3%
PRF 41.01%
W$SD 49.65%
BB/100 4.16

APH 5.49

27 losing sessions out of 82

Always plays 3 tables

The biggest winners at this level all play above 40VP$IP

I cant see any players with a BB/100 over 1.73 that play under VP$IP 30%

[ISF]

This is most likely just an artifact of the data. They also have the lagest variance, so if you have enough of them then by chance in any data set the largest winners will just likely be a subset of those with the highest variance unless you had an absordly large number of hands on everyone.

[imported_excel]

So its pure coincidince that not 1 tight player is running above 1.73BB/100 over 7000 hands and that all the players over 3BB are 40VP ?

Has been same trend from the start,

[DMBFan23]

who are the biggest losers?

[DrGutshot]

excel, how many vpip>40 pfr>30 players are losing after >10k hands?

thanks,

-DrG

[rory]

People who play a loose aggressive style are going to be on the far ends of the spectrum in terms of money won and money lost in the short term. They will be the biggest winners and the biggest losers in the short term, because they have the highest fluctuations. So if you are just looking at who has the highest win rate, you are going to find that the LAGs do-- it is just an artifact of not enough data.

[TStoneMBD]

this is the first time ive ever heard a PT report that displays playing tight as a losing proposition. it is illogical to me to assume that anybody with a 50% VPIP could possibly maintain longterm success, but 26k hands is quite a long time to maintain a 4BB/100 rate to assume that its pure variance. yes, his true winrate may be less than 4BB/100, but would it be possible that its in the negative figures? that would be quite a significant swing of standard deviation. unfortunately, i am not at all experienced when calculating standard deviation, so i do not know the likelyhood of a -.01BB/100 player producing a 4BB/100 rate after 26k hands. i hope someone with better knowledge of the subject could do the calculations for me.

[MAxx]

how many players are you tracking, and how did you select them again? are you keeping up with the losers also?

wasnt your selection method biased... so isnt your study basically poop?

also, if i remember correctly didnt you tell us of 3 players like this in a previous post about your study? what happened to the other 2? is he the only one left standing?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
this is the first time ive ever heard a PT report that displays playing tight as a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you must have missed his other seven thousand posts on the subject. The boy's obsessed, and I can't figure out why.

[ISF]

A real test would be to track these SAME players over the next 10k hands and see weather or not the tight or loose winners on average perform better over then next 10k hands.