New NL Full Ring Autorates

[_And1_]

love the work .. nice article and great rules... comments to come..

[_And1_]

There, now i have read it once more.

I think you are right on. Earlier, before the days of the bisonbison filters, i worked on a filter of my own and tried to add the features you have been focusing on as WtSD and W$SD, but as you say its hard to as they dont fit in the 15 categories if you supposedly have the three categoires (vpip, PF, AF) already.

Later GT+ came along so the autorate filter was not that important, so the common filter + GT+ did the works for me.

Even so you have good points there.... nice article...

[mosuavea]

I would also be interested in a NL 6 Max AutoRate file. I do not have a DB with that many NL 6 max hands so I cant be of much help at the moment, but I would love to see one. Thanks for all the hard work you have put into your rules!

[illunious]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
18 1 0.10 Aggression Factor - River is greater than 0.10
17 1 0.10 Aggression Factor - Turn is greater than 0.10 </pre><hr />

Aren't these turn and river aggression factor requirements extremely low? Someone that calls 8x more than they bet/raise would be classified as aggressive.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> Vol. Put Money In Pot % is between 35.00 and 99.00</pre><hr />

What about 100? Why not greater than 35?

[excession]

the UA's check aggression on each street, TA just checks the flop - the .1 is just to make sure that folks who have zero rating on turn and river ( don't have enough hands there) fall into TN/unknown

the ignoring 100% Vp$iP has the same idea - to avoid rating those with only a few hands played, although of course if you rate after 20+ hands like most folks this won't be relevant

[NoChance]

Unless I completely missed it, why are you only checking the aggression on the flop? Why not Aggression Total?

[excession]

Ah - use of Flop aggression as opposed to Total Post-Flop Aggression...

Obviously flop aggression is the biggest component of aggregate aggression, so we are probably not talking about a lot of folks here..

The historical reason is that I did start checking aggression on all three streets (as I still do for UA's) but found it cut the aggressive player numbers back too much.

I kept it as just the flop agression as you will see the aggregate PFA for every player using GT+ or PV anyway so if you see a passive PFA number against an aggressive icon you at least get a heads up that that player may like to call flops and bet at you on the later streets.. currently with GT+ you can't see agression by street of course..

In pure analytical terms use of the aggregate PFA would make more sense of course..but having spent so long doing the runs balancing the numbers I'm loathe to switch back unless I can see a real practical benefit.. I may do it if it proves a big issue in practice but so far the feedback I ahve had indicates that under these rules the aggressives are more accurately tagged than under previous ones..

[NoChance]

I have settled on using Aggression - Turn and River &gt;= 1.00 for those situations where you have 0.10.

This number is high enough to make the icon consistant throughout each street rather than aggressive on the flop and passive thereafter (and vice-versa). The number is also low enough that not too many get filtered out because they don't qualify on each street. There were a handful that were filtered out because they had around 0.50 - 0.70 for Aggression - river. To me, these players should not have those icons anyway.

Thoughts ?

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
the .1 is just to make sure that folks who have zero rating on turn and river ( don't have enough hands there) fall into TN/unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes sense. Not convinced about the .1 AF requirement though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In my mind, someone with an uber-low AF (&lt; .5 maybe) on the turn or river has not played aggressive enough to be labeled aggressive. A bet or raise on these streets by this player should scare me, and if they are labeled aggressive, I'm not going to have that reaction.

[excession]

over a lot of rivers I agree, but what's if he has just seen a few.

Take a player who has 100 hands logged, seen 20 flops, folded 5, bet 10, raised 2 and called 3. AF of 4 on flop and certainly TA to me...

But of those 20 flops he has only seen 3 rivers (maybe his strong betting has pushed folks out)- are you going to disbar him from aggressive status because he called two (they might have been opponent all ins for all we know) and raised one?

A lot of thought has gone in to trying to increase the accuracy of early ratings and to make sure that folks aren't being rated on just a few instances if possible. If you only rate after 200+ hands then fine, but most folks start rating at 20-30 or so..