New NL Full Ring Autorates

[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..

[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..

[illunious]

Good response. I like it.

I look forward to getting your 6-max rules.

[Nato76]

It changed me from a tazmanian devil to dice. I guess it means I suck.

[NoChance]

I have settled on using Aggression - Turn and River >= 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 ?

[Mendacious]

I applaud your effort. I took your previous rules and modified them a bit...took out vanilla and added back Maniac, but they serve as a great basis for constructing ones own NL rules.

That being said...PTH is obviously not designed for NL, and the rules that you make are a terrific attempt to use a hammer as a screwdriver. In my mind, the distinguishing feature of NL and PL is the control one has with the size of bets. Trying to make use of statistics for this game that don't take into account the size of one's bets is going to achieve very limited results-- albeit more useful than nothing.

I have found in PL (Omaha) but I think it would apply in Hold-em as well, that W$SD is by FAR the most usefull second rating criteria (after VP$IP). This works in PL because very often you can avoid a bad SD because it takes several moves (usually a re-raise or two) to put someone all-in.

I have a feeling that PTH and PTO stats are most useful in limit, followed by PL (using W$SD stats) and least useful for NL because the size of the bets is of such great inportance in NL and it just isn't available information. So I'm calling for some bet size stats in PT for the NL players.

[excession]

More or less how I first set it up although I used slightly higher numbers than 1.0 to cut off.
It's a trade off - you get more consistent aggression in you aggressives at the cost of unbalancing the nos a bit more and losing the occasional aggressive with few turns/rivers back to neutral-unknown - you could logically just switch back to overall post-flop aggression to have a similar effect but with less 'losses' for few rivers/turns

I don't think it makes a huge difference to the nos or outcomes either way to be honest

[excession]

Thanks - you are quite right that PT is a an imperfect tool - extracting meaning from bet sizes could be very tricky I think but if we had the data at least we could have a go..

Until version 3 (or at the very least some more categories are added) I'm not sure that we can take the autorates and related player analyses much further..

Still there is plenty of other ground to cover with this version of PT yet I think..