#1
|
|||
|
|||
Blinds Stats 5/10 6-MAX, Revisited
I know there was a thread a month or so ago discussing how much people were losing in the blinds. I couldn't find it so I'm looking for some help. I think my BB loss rate is killing me.
Am I not raising enough when I have hand that warrants it? Any other suggestions? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Blinds Stats 5/10 6-MAX, Revisited
dude....your blind play is the least of your worries. you gotta loosen up on the button and co.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Curse of MP (Position 2)
Hey man, my stats look pretty close to yours in terms of BB/100 for each position...my BB/100 from position 2 is about half of what it is from the other positions (after 35k hands). Does anyone know why this is?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Blinds Stats 5/10 6-MAX, Revisited
[ QUOTE ]
you gotta loosen up on the button and co. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. I really want to be a 23 - 25 VPIP overall and 15 PFR. Looking at my stats, it seems like I have tightened up a bit in the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure if the cards are running colder for me or I'm getting a little gun shy from some bad days. I feel like I would need to be cold calling a lot more from the later positions to bring VPIP up. It's something I am going to work on. I've been throwing a lot of small pocket pairs when facing a raise late. Is that a leak? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Curse of MP (Position 2)
[ QUOTE ]
BB/100 from position 2 is about half of what it is from the other positions (after 35k hands). Does anyone know why this is? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah that position 2 phenomenon is pretty interesting. I don't have an explanation outside of small sample size variance. However, your 35K hands are a much larger sample than I have. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Curse of MP (Position 2)
Interesting - my CO stats are about half the other non-blind data.
35k hands - 10k 1/2 the remainder 5/10 I apologize for not being able to make html work for this table. <font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> <TABLE BORDER=2> <TR> <TH>Position</TH> <TH> VP$IP</TH> <TH> BB/hand</TH> </TR> <TR> <TD>BB</TD> <TD>31.7%</TD> <TD>0.15</TD> </TR> <TR> <TD>CO</TD> <TD>25.9%</TD> <TD>0.06</TD> </TR> <TR> <TD>MP2</TD> <TD>24.4%</TD> <TD>0.11</TD> </TR> <TR> <TD>MP3</TD> <TD>23.8%</TD> <TD>0.11</TD> </TR> <TR> <TD>BB</TD> <TD>19.1%</TD> <TD>(0.14)</TD> </TR> <TR> <TD>SB</TD> <TD>35%</TD> <TD>(0.01)</TD> </TR> </pre><hr /> I think my small blind data are better than many because I am very aggressive here. I do not understand the CO data - but suspect that the variance is great enough to not be that meaningful. |
|
|