Winning Player VP$IP 50% - Page 2

Jeff W · #11 03-01-2005, 01:03 PM

Please post this player's Standard Deviation/100 hands. You can find this figure in the more detail button on the session notes tab.

If you don't mind, I'd be very interested in seeing screenshots of this player's "More Detail..." sheet from the General Info tab of pokertracker and his Position Stats tab.

Thank you.

stigmata · #12 03-01-2005, 01:12 PM

You can use his SD to see how confident you are he is a winning player

However, I think you would need to make adjustements for multiple test: e.g. you have selected for the best player from a long list of them.

I'm not discounting your results, but there are so many problems with this type of analysis, I would like a proper stats person to look at it. Especially when the results run contrary to standard dogma.

imported_excel · #13 03-01-2005, 02:05 PM

Im highlighting 1 player, first I will answer questions on this 1 player:

[ QUOTE ]
Please post this player's Standard Deviation/100 hands. You can find this figure in the more detail button on the session notes tab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard Deviation/100 hands. $820.88 27.3628 Big Bets

Not sure how to get screenshots

[ QUOTE ]
who are the biggest losers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont look at the biggest losers, they are potentially bad players, if they not ill see them as they rise into winners.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what this tells u,

Greater than 40 vpip 1 4 winners 2 losers
Greater than 30 vpip 10 winners 8 losers, note top 2 winners won more than all losers put together

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

[/ QUOTE ]

At the moment Im looking at players who have played over 7000 hands,
39 players, 22 winners, 17 losers

8 of the winners play over 40vpip
4 of the losers play over 40vpip
average bb/100 of all of those 12 players is 1.97

8 players play less than 30 vpip
6 are winners 2 are losers
average bb/100 of those players is 0.84

[ QUOTE ]
wasnt your selection method biased... so isnt your study basically poop

[/ QUOTE ]

hows my selection method biased? Im constantly looking at the biggest winning players, have been for weeks now and the winning players keep on winning.
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I talked of 3 players,

1 has fallen to a bb/100 of 1.16, also W$SD of 47, which explains a bit of the fall. however theres now a total of 6 players over 40vpip who are performing very well.

Heres a view of the top players in order of bb/100
Hands, vpip, pfr
Player 1: 8361/44/21/5
Player 2: 9472/54/36/4
Player 3: 25,966/51/41/4 this player i highlighted above

Player 4: 9838/47/19/3
player 5: 33,456/40/24/3
player 6: 15,801/49/19/3
player 7: 13,563/34/18/3
player 8: 7728/45/24/2

Most of these winning players never talk at the tables, the one that did appears most human in that appears to have some sort of tilt with W$SD of 47, most play 2- 3 tables at all times.

MrBig30 · #14 03-01-2005, 02:07 PM

I´m sure you can be a winning player with a high VPIP. No one is going to call Gus Hansen a loser, sure thats no limit but thats not the point. My point is you can have many different styles that can make you a long term winner. My guess is its harder to win being very loose so maybe if you look at loose highstakes players you are looking at a very talented group of players...

Anyway to make these statistics more interesting, like someone already pointed out: Why not use the first 5000 or whatever hands to group people into tight, medium and loose players. Then see what happens to average BB/100 in the 3 groups from the hands after #5000? That way you dont get as much bias as just looking at the biggest winners.

Grisgra · #15 03-01-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wasnt your selection method biased... so isnt your study basically poop

[/ QUOTE ]

hows my selection method biased? Im constantly looking at the biggest winning players . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

A statistician, you are not.

spider · #16 03-01-2005, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hows my selection method biased? Im constantly looking at the biggest winning players . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
A statistician, you are not.

[/ QUOTE ][img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Two points:

(1) When bias is a problem (as it most certainly is here), it is not going to be cured by a larger sample size. Maybe the bias increases with a bigger sample, or maybe it decreases. Hard to say. But simply increasing the sample size never cures a bias problem. It's like changing the oil because the brakes aren't working.

(2) If you believe that this super loose style is a winner, just try it out yourself. Let us know how it goes.

arkady · #17 03-01-2005, 02:19 PM

waste of time.

sqvirrel · #18 03-01-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I talked of 3 players,

1 has fallen to a bb/100 of 1.16, also W$SD of 47, which explains a bit of the fall. however theres now a total of 6 players over 40vpip who are performing very well.

Heres a view of the top players in order of bb/100
Hands, vpip, pfr
Player 1: 8361/44/21/5
Player 2: 9472/54/36/4
Player 3: 25,966/51/41/4 this player i highlighted above

Player 4: 9838/47/19/3
player 5: 33,456/40/24/3
player 6: 15,801/49/19/3
player 7: 13,563/34/18/3
player 8: 7728/45/24/2

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that rather than finding the best natural winners at 15/30 you have identified the best colluders instead?

Just a thought.

imported_excel · #19 03-01-2005, 02:37 PM

Grisgra, why do you even bother looking in my posts, I never once seen you post something with intelligence behind it.

Arkady, [ QUOTE ]
waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont waste time and space in my posts either, open your mind, your might learn more, not just in poker but in life.

valid criticism and questions welcome, Ill do my best to answer, feel free to predict that all these players will soon sucumb to the inevitably losses you expect,

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that this super loose style is a winner, just try it out yourself. Let us know how it goes

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not saying that super loose itself is a winning style, just like I dont think tight aggressive typical 2+2 style means you will be a long term winner.

What Im questioning is whether a "GOOD" loose aggressive player can actually win at a much better rate than a "GOOD" tight aggressive. Even if its end up being not much better, if it wins more, then its more of an ideal way to play,

Working out how these guys play pre flop is easy, how they play post flop is alot more difficult, and of course I dont see exactly what they fold. So its going to be difficult to workout the exact theory behind some of there plays.

Also note, most of these players are pretty good in the blinds, which to me is always a sign of a
good player.

rory · #20 03-01-2005, 02:50 PM

What you are not understanding is that playing loose and aggressive induces wild swings in your bankroll. There will always be a few very loose very aggressive players who have the highest win rate, but that is just because some of them have to get lucky, and it happens to be these guys you are looking at.

It would be like you were at a coin flip tournament, and at the end of the tournament, you went around and interviewed all of the people who placed high in the tournament and asked about their strategies. They would appear, to you, to be really good coin flippers because they won the tournament, but in reality they just happened to be the coin flippers who got lucky that tournament.

You are examining outliers and trying to draw conclusions about them. It is pointless.