What level at Party do you begin to encounter really good players?

[mxyzptlk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$20-40 is a step function up from 10-20 and it plays significantly better and tighter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gerg, you fking dork. "Step function"?

You got yourself into this: explain to me why there is an undefined rate of change (derivative) in level of skill between 10/20 and 20/40. Until then, I'm going to stand by my exponentially weighted cubic spline model describing the ascending skill of opponents in party O8 games.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lol, go to www.o8poker.com, then click "tools", then click "Differences in play by limit".

There you will see empirical, factual data that clearly shows a signficant jump from $10-20 to $20-40 for both average and winning players in nearly all important PT metrics including the following: PFR, FlopAgr, TurnAgr, RiverAgr, WonWhenSawFlop. There is also a clear decrease in VPIP.

I'll wait til you retake Engineering for FckTards so you can calculate for yourself the derivative of each variable shown. Be advised that my choice of 'step function' was carefully selected over 'exponential', 'dramatic' and 'ascending' to most accurately reflect the data.

i'm so sorry your post-graduate education has shown such a poor return. However, I think you know where you can stick your cubic spline...

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

now you retards woke me up, and I'm gonna have to cut through this BS with some real math. If you have two sets of player data at those two limits, measured by those stats you mentioned, you are basically modeling players as some n-variate random variable from two unknown distributions. Your data sets are basically a set of samples from those two distributions. Now, if you had some way of estimating those two distributions, one standard of measuring the "difference " between those two distributions is something known as "Kullback-Leibler divergence" (justfukingoogleit), and if you want to use the empirical distributions as estimates of the real distributions, you could take the KL divergence between the two of those to measure the difference in play at those limits. Otherwise, you guys can stuff your step functions and interpolated splines back in your holes.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
now you retards woke me up, and I'm gonna have to cut through this BS with some real math. If you have two sets of player data at those two limits, measured by those stats you mentioned, you are basically modeling players as some n-variate random variable from two unknown distributions. Your data sets are basically a set of samples from those two distributions. Now, if you had some way of estimating those two distributions, one standard of measuring the "difference " between those two distributions is something known as "Kullback-Leibler divergence" (justfukingoogleit), and if you want to use the empirical distributions as estimates of the real distributions, you could take the KL divergence between the two of those to measure the difference in play at those limits. Otherwise, you guys can stuff your step functions and interpolated splines back in your holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you make a comparison between online vs B&M? Which level of online plays the most similar to $10-20 live play? I know it is a judgement call but I would like your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you already said, it depends. I've played in live 20/40 games that were as soft as .5/1 onlind. In general, the red chip live games I've played in (mostly 10/20 with a bit of 20/40) played a lot like 3/6 or 4/8 online. This is just pure speculation however. I played about 2k hands of 15/30 on party a few months ago when a couple buddies spontanously moved up and i followed them. The game was ridiculously soft. But, as gregery noted, generally would you go above 10/20 in any limit game online things start to get tough.