|
|
#11
11-18-2005, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Temp Results
[ QUOTE ]
I have samples from 3 people so far. We need many more for these numbers to be meaningful. The results so far are: ***WINRATES FOR VARIOUS HANDS FOR 2+2ERS IN 6 MAX GAMES*** Hand #Times WINRATE(bb/hand) K9o 5418 -0.05 Q9o 5490 -0.04 J9o 5507 -0.08 T9o 5437 -0.05 [/ QUOTE ] I really don't get what you are trying to show here. I doubt any of these will end up being >0 for their winrate, and I imagine we could expect to see K9 more valueble than Q9 and so on. 
|
|
#12
11-18-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Temp Results
Hi Spicymoose,
What I really want to know is the strength of some of these marginal hands, and how playable they are out of the blinds. I picked offsuit hands because it's easier to get a statistically sufficient sample of them since they occur so frequently. The specific hands I picked, K9, Q9, J9, and T9, are one notch south of hands I KNOW are profitable overall in 6 max games. Are these hands only playable on the button? How much do they make on the button? Can some of them open in the cutoff as well in typical games? I suspect that any hand that you can open with from the cutoff as a default play should be at least breakeven EV overall (in 6 max games). My stats with all 4 of these hands are miserable, so I am interested in learning more about them. Lastly, I enjoy looking at and pondering the statistics of hand values. I learned a lot about relative hand values from the EV charts at http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/g...stats/expValue . The problem with that site is that you have the combined stats of everyone, including poor players, which skews the results of marginal hands. If I had access to a hundred people's DBs I could look at all sorts of things, but I don't; so I have to come up with a simple question that I can get a high volume of responses on.
|
|
#13
11-18-2005, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Temp Results
[ QUOTE ]
What I really want to know is the strength of some of these marginal hands, and how playable they are out of the blinds [/ QUOTE ] then why the [censored] are you including the blind occurences?
|
|
#17
11-18-2005, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Temp Results
[ QUOTE ]
then why the [censored] are you including the blind occurences? [/ QUOTE ] I'll illustrate why with an example. Let's say I want to know what my winrate could bewith K9o in the cutoff if I opened with it. Let's say that I've been dealt it 300 times in the cutoff and I've folded it 300 times. I'm making 0.00 bb/hand with K9o in the cutoff. What does that tell me about whether it's playable in the cutoff or not? Absolutely nothing. As I stated in another post in this thread, the strength of a hand outside the blinds is correlated with its strength in the blinds. A hand that is playable UTG for instance, usually breaks even or better in the blinds, whereas a hand that you muck first in on the button usually does pretty close to it's "loss floor" (roughly (-0.12)bb/hand in the big blind in 6 max) in the blinds. Since many people don't play the four hands I listed in the cutoff, and some don't even play them on the button (I have 130k hands of 5-10 as a significant winner without ever playing any one of those four hands on the button), I believe I will get a BETTER idea of their strength OUTSIDE the blinds by incorporating data INSIDE the blinds then by not incorporating this data.
|
|
#18
11-18-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Temp Results
I disagree on several points.
1. There are enough people who do play K9-J9 in the c/o and button that you should be able to tell the potential that these hands have. 2. Blind play verses button play are two very differnet animals, and its not difficult for a non expert to be above average in one area and below in the other. Extrapolating that since sit. A is profitable that sit B with the same hand should also be profitable can lead people down a dangerous path.
|
|
#19
11-18-2005, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Temp Results
[ QUOTE ]
1. There are enough people who do play K9-J9 in the c/o and button that you should be able to tell the potential that these hands have. [/ QUOTE ] The people who play K9-J9 in the cutoff are a small subset of the people who play them on the button. And those people are a subset of the total population of players. On top of that, you have less than half the number of hands in the cutoff and button as in the blinds. So we are wheedling down the number of samples a lot by leaving out the blinds. You need tens of thousands of samples for winrate to mask the standard deviation of these hands, so I don't agree that there are 'enough people,' at least that will respond to this thread. I agree with you on number 2. But I disagree that this invalidates the statistics if I incorporate hands from a large number of winning players. Maybe a few will play great in the blinds and horrible out of the blinds or vice versa but most winning players won't exhibit this bipolarity on an extreme level and with enough players this should be smoothed out.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
