The EV of different playing styles - Part Two

rharless · #1 03-03-2004, 03:46 AM

For background of this post, see here First post

My previous analysis has now been expanded to include more hands and game levels. This is thanks to approximately ten 2+2ers who submitted their Pokertracker summary data to me to merge into one large database of players. Here are the results:

Texture of each game level

Here is the MEDIAN Preflop raise (pfr) and Voluntarily Put in Pot (VPIP) percentage for the different levels analyzed:

Code:<hr /><pre>game pfr vpip
micro 3.57 34.41
2-4 4.35 31.58
3-6 5.20 30.91
5-10 5.62 26.19
5-10 6max 8.57 43.79</pre><hr />

This gives you an idea of the changing nature of the game as you move among different limits and among full-ring and SH. "Micro" is defined here as .50-1 and 1-2.

"Four box" grids - Average BB/100 hands of each "playing style"

Micro

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP <= 29
Aggressive: PFR >= 4
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Loose
Aggressive 2.16 -0.64
92503 hands, 512 players 57478 hands, 767 players
Passive 0.70 -3.88
46708 hands, 532 players 73878 hands, 957 players</pre><hr />

$2/$4

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP <= 28
Aggressive: PFR >= 5
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Loose
Aggressive 2.84 -0.98
60872 hands, 417 players 49141 hands, 626 players
Passive -0.04 -3.17
60207 hands, 562 players 60585 hands, 810 players</pre><hr />

$3/$6

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP <= 24
Aggressive: PFR >= 6
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Loose
Aggressive 1.84 -1.87
347230 hands, 880 players 245961 hands, 2014 players
Passive 0.46 -4.73
241399 hands, 1315 players 289716 hands, 2500 players</pre><hr />

$5/$10

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP <= 22
Aggressive: PFR >= 7
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Loose
Aggressive 1.78 -1.00
143865 hands, 456 players 144044 hands, 1243 players
Passive -0.08 -3.60
148074 hands, 753 players 161635 hands, 1459 players</pre><hr />

$5/$10 (6 max)

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP <= 34
Aggressive: PFR >= 10
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Loose
Aggressive 2.12 -1.13
168066 hands, 330 players 94661 hands, 848 players
Passive -0.77 -4.33
57723 hands, 416 players 132775 hands, 1175 players</pre><hr />

"Nine box" grids - Average BB/100 hands of each "playing style"

Micro and 2-4

I did not have enough data for separate Micro and 2-4 grids, so I combined those two for one nine-box grid

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP < 22
Loose: VPIP > 34
Aggressive: PFR >= 6.5
Passive: PFR < 3.5
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Normal Loose
Aggressive 2.49 2.02 -1.80
39379 hands, 256 players 57802 hands, 459 players 52323 hands, 725 players
Normal 1.51 2.12 -1.14
60355 hands, 353 players 61927 hands, 429 players 40138 hands, 528 players
Passive -0.20 -1.41 -4.07
41427 hands, 492 players 54660 hands, 637 players 88081 hands, 1172 players</pre><hr />

$3/$6

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP < 18
Loose: VPIP > 30
Aggressive: PFR >= 7
Passive: PFR < 4.5
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Normal Loose
Aggressive 1.82 2.00 -2.89
63637 hands, 237 players 140161 hands, 734 players 139431 hands, 1294 players
Normal 1.48 0.46 -4.42
223755 hands, 328 players 123740 hands, 560 players 76259 hands, 624 players
Passive -0.16 -0.42 -6.63
66404 hands, 444 players 129559 hands, 872 players 157160 hands, 1511 players</pre><hr />

$5/$10

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP < 18
Loose: VPIP > 28
Aggressive: PFR >= 8
Passive: PFR < 5
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Normal Loose
Aggressive 2.02 1.15 -1.08
85718 hands, 163 players 74842 hands, 450 players 78994 hands, 753 players
Normal 1.04 0.04 -2.47
76439 hands, 228 players 57715 hands, 344 players 48273 hands, 374 players
Passive -1.53 -1.15 -6.03
39577 hands, 301 players 57803 hands, 443 players 75497 hands, 786 players</pre><hr />

$5/$10 (6 max)

I did not have enough data for a full nine-box grid, as I try to get at least 30k hands in each "box." I could not combine this data with any other category, so I compromised and created a "six box" grid.

The thresholds I used are:
Tight: VPIP < 31
Loose: VPIP > 44
Aggressive: PFR >= 10
Passive: PFR < 10
Code:<hr /><pre> Tight Normal Loose
Aggressive 2.19 1.39 -2.48
154696 hands, 234 players 45882 hands, 332 players 61229 hands, 589 players
Passive -1.21 -1.58 -5.78
43915 hands, 313 players 64800 hands, 497 players 80823 hands, 757 players</pre><hr />

Notes:
-- This is the result of merging results from about ten people.
-- Duplicate hands, where identified, were removed from the final set of data in attempts to ensure a "zero sum" database. Not all duplicate hands can be identified, however, due to use individual entries for aliasing.
-- Players are not included in the analysis if they have 40 hands or less, with the approach that their playing style cannot be nailed down within that number of hands.

Jeremy'sSpoken · #2 03-03-2004, 04:25 AM

Absolutely awesome. Great work and extremely interesting. I thank you and all of the tpt'ers who did this.

Bob T. · #3 03-03-2004, 06:03 AM

Cool.

I think the thing that stood out the most on my first scan is that the normal/normal players did well at the lowes limits, but at the limits increased, those players became closer and closer to break even players. It would be very interesting to see if that trend would stand up with the addition of more data.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.

Warik · #4 03-03-2004, 10:57 AM

Excellent excellent data and analysis. A definite addition to my 2+2 good threads folder.

I am curious to a few things. How did you make your final selections as to what VP$IP and PFR values corresponded to each threshold?

Secondly, and I think this would be very interesting data, how would a refusal to change one's playing style affect him as he moved up in limits?

Suppose your micro player is playing at VP$IP <= 29 and PFR >= 4 and suddenly finds himself with enough BR to play all of the other limits in the analysis. How would VP$IP <= 29 and PFR >=4 affect his winrate at 2/4, 3/6, etc... if he doesn't make adjustments to the change in play?

And the complement I suppose... how would a VP$IP < 18 and PFR >= 8 $5/$10 full ring player fare on a Micro vacation?

I did find it interesting though that regardless of how passively or aggressively you play, playing loose is a losing game. You can straddle the break-even point if you play tight passive at the lower limits, but no matter where you go, loose = lose. Find those high flop % games and stick to them like glue. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks again for the great analysis.

Mike Gallo · #5 03-03-2004, 11:04 AM

Awesome job.

Extremely cutting edge post.

Joe Tall · #6 03-03-2004, 11:28 AM

Wow!

Very well done!

Peace,
Joe Tall

toots · #7 03-03-2004, 11:53 AM

Fascinating (and well appreciated).

nykenny · #8 03-03-2004, 12:02 PM

seriously, how can EV be related to STYLE? style=skills?

with all due respect, i think your data is thorough, but irrelavent.

kenny

Warik · #9 03-03-2004, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
seriously, how can EV be related to STYLE? style=skills?

with all due respect, i think your data is thorough, but irrelavent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... we know that tightness is related to how often you see the flop and aggressiveness relates to how often you raise before the flop. It would be logical to conclude therefore that people who play any two cards are likely to lose a lot of money... and those who don't raise before the flop (to take advantage of when they actually DO have good cards) won't necessarily lose a lot of money, but they won't win as much either.

Thus, the loose passive folks would logically have the lowest EV... and the data analysis confirmed that.

So this analysis has taken it to a further level. By setting cutoff points and then analyzing, we now know that micro players who have a VPIP less than X and a PFR greater than Y will typically have an EV of +Z BB/100 hands. It's not an assumption or hypothesis, it's been confirmed by the compilation of multiple PokerTracker databases with many hands and many players.

I think the info is very relevant... why don't you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

nykenny · #10 03-03-2004, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, the loose passive folks would logically have the lowest EV... and the data analysis confirmed that.

[/ QUOTE ]
i thought EV means in a given situation, the amount of $ win/loss a particular decision yields on average in the long run.

talking percentage really isn't all that important. of course, your conclusion "loose will lose" is right on the money...