What percentage of wins do you need to be profitable in a session?
johnny_t
am toying with this as a concept.
Initial Premise...
---
On a nine handed table, all else being equal, 11% of the hands would go
to you.
---
Conclusions...
You can increase the percentage somewhat by trying to improve your
winning percentages by folding worse hands, and playing better ones.
At your table, what percentage do you actually need to have be winners
and losers to do well in a session.
In my limited science, I need ~7% winning hands to break even. But the
session starts falling apart dramatically from there. If it goes to ~5%
it becomes a multiple buy-in session, and I am playing worse, and my
opponents are playing me better, because I cannot generate enough fear
when playing, which means I cannot generate any fold equity, and I am
not hitting well enough to capitalize on that mistake.
At about 7% things start to equalize, and I actually am hitting often
enough to get paid on my hands to break even. I am starting to create
fear and generate fold equity.
At about 9-10% I am having a good session, making money, not dragging
multiple racks out. Everything feels normal. I can generate enough
fear to get people to fold. I also get paid off a reasonable amount.
At about 12% I am making really good money fairly quickly, I am starting
to generate a lot of fear, and I am starting to get paid off less on my
made hands.
Greater than 17%. This is where anyone can make money. You really seem
to not be able to make any mistakes. You get paid off, everything
seems like a bluff, your opponents call you a luck box, pretty much any
two that you are playing seem to hit.
________________
This raises a few interesting points. Fortunately I seem to be able to
make money when the cards are slightly not going my way, and make good
money when they are breaking even or going my way.
Unfortunately, running bad doesn't just break even, it wipes out one
good session. And running bad seems to go in pretty long streaks.
There is no denying the math of running bad, the question I guess is one
of human terms. What do you do to keep it together while you are
running bad?
This is a similar issue I have with my son from time to time. You have
to keep up your self esteem when things aren't going well, but in the
same breath it is simply not ok to keep letting things not go so well.
Where is that balance between fire and calm? Maybe this is totally a
zen question. A greed/fear duality? Maybe it is simply a question of
Bankroll Management?
This does seem to be one of the reasons to be driven towards nit-dom.
Playing for least damage during running bad, does not maximize profits
during running slightly bad to good. And overall ev is lessened at
decrease in variance.
Oh well, maybe we can talk about poker for a bit. Any thoughts?
phlash74
> In trying to get around the problem of good session and bad session, I
> am toying with this as a concept.
>
> Initial Premise...
>
> ---
> On a nine handed table, all else being equal, 11% of the hands would go
> to you.
> ---
>
> Conclusions...
>
> You can increase the percentage somewhat by trying to improve your
> winning percentages by folding worse hands, and playing better ones.
Actually, you'd increase your percentage of pots won by never
folding. Of course, you'd probably run out of money.
>
> At your table, what percentage do you actually need to have be winners
> and losers to do well in a session.
It's not the percentage of pots won that matters, it's the size of
pots won. If you win a couple big pots and lose several tiny ones,
you'll probably come out ahead.
<snip rest of nonsense>
Michael
U.S. American
johnny_t
>
> Actually, you'd increase your percentage of pots won by never
> folding. Of course, you'd probably run out of money.
Not true. you would increase the NUMBER of pots, not the Percentage of
pots. There is a BIG difference. I think you understand that, but you
have it backwards.
>> At your table, what percentage do you actually need to have be winners
>> and losers to do well in a session.
>
>
> It's not the percentage of pots won that matters, it's the size of
> pots won. If you win a couple big pots and lose several tiny ones,
> you'll probably come out ahead.
Yes, this is true. But this is the kind of the core of the problem.
Developing the right number of hands where you have a surprising
quantity of strength, or develop the right type of fear late in a hand.
Both of these can be difficult to pull off if you haven't showed any
winners. You either cannot develop the right amount of fear, or you
can't show the right type of winner.
But your point is why having less than your share of winners can still
result in a winning or break even session. I am trying to explore where
those edges are.
> <snip rest of nonsense>
Ahh, now you have dismissed everything without qualification, when I did
you a favor and responded to your points.
And at the end of the day, you have neither argued against my points, or
supported yours. Maybe you shouldn't have hijacked my thread, or
hopefully you can respond more on topic, and explore the effects and
meaning of "running bad" or "running good", and what can be done about it.
You know, the point of the thread.
Patti Beadles
pots necessary" number. How would you use that information?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Palooka
> Let's say that you managed to come up with a solid "X% of
> pots necessary" number. How would you use that information?
>
Palooka
johnny_t
> Let's say that you managed to come up with a solid "X% of
> pots necessary" number. How would you use that information?
>
> -Patti
An excellent question!
I don't have an answer of yet. I don't know if there IS an answer, or
usefulness.
However, I don't think that is probably true. The more I understand the
game, the more I explore it, I find answers to all sorts of things, I
didn't even yet realize there were questions for.
So, at this point, it appears to have a major effect on my game. I am
rated online in the top 7 percent according to some rating services.
Others think that I am a good player. I have more good days than bad.
I still have issues with "running bad" what that means, and what are the
edges between running bad and not.
There is Mike Caro quote that runs through the back of my mind while
this is going on about running bad leading to playing bad. This is
part of the process of really understanding that statement.
The only two parts that I figured out in the playing bad, is either
going nittish which affects your table image poorly when cards start
breaking your way, and you may miss out on many "normal" pots and
seriously affect your ev. On the flip side, you get exploited in
various ways because you are not generating enough fear that comes from
laying down winners and THIS has an affect on your ev. So in some
sense, it is understanding, when and why you are running bad, and then
managing that part correctly. Maybe getting up is the right answer.
But that seems to have tremendous opportunity cost, and flies in the
face of it's all one session thinking.
However, I don't really have much choice of games live, so I am trying
to deal with this whole running bad issue, and how it affects my game,
my bankroll, and table image.
One thing that is interesting, is that I play in a known tough game.
This is a weakness caused by the rest of my life. I can only play when I
play. This doesn't mean that there aren't errors nor that there are
tendencies to exploit, but there are damn few weak players at the table.
And I win more often than I lose, and I carry some respect in the
game. I am a contributer when I am running bad though.
So, again, I don't know. But maybe I/we will figure out something.
garycarson
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
K9way
out!!
Bad Troll!! Back under the bridge!!
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> Let's say that you managed to come up with a solid "X% of
> pots necessary" number. How would you use that information?
You'd aggressively compete for every pot until you reached the magical
wiin percentage. Then you'd cash out for the day.
It takes all the gamble out of the game, ensuring a win every day.
>
> -Patti
> --
> Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
> pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
> http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
> http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> phlash74 wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, you'd increase your percentage of pots won by never
> > folding. Of course, you'd probably run out of money.
>
> Not true. you would increase the NUMBER of pots, not the Percentage of
> pots. There is a BIG difference. I think you understand that, but you
> have it backwards.
>
>
BIG, huh?
In your OP you calculated percentage by dividing by the hands dealt.
So working with the definition of percentage that you used, you maximize
that percentage by playing every hand as aggressively as you can.
Idiot.
>
> >> At your table, what percentage do you actually need to have be winners
> >> and losers to do well in a session.
> >
> >
> > It's not the percentage of pots won that matters, it's the size of
> > pots won. If you win a couple big pots and lose several tiny ones,
> > you'll probably come out ahead.
>
> Yes, this is true. But this is the kind of the core of the problem.
> Developing the right number of hands where you have a surprising
> quantity of strength, or develop the right type of fear late in a hand.
>
> Both of these can be difficult to pull off if you haven't showed any
> winners. You either cannot develop the right amount of fear, or you
> can't show the right type of winner.
>
> But your point is why having less than your share of winners can still
> result in a winning or break even session. I am trying to explore where
> those edges are.
>
>
> > <snip rest of nonsense>
>
> Ahh, now you have dismissed everything without qualification, when I did
> you a favor and responded to your points.
>
> And at the end of the day, you have neither argued against my points, or
> supported yours. Maybe you shouldn't have hijacked my thread, or
> hopefully you can respond more on topic, and explore the effects and
> meaning of "running bad" or "running good", and what can be done about it.
>
> You know, the point of the thread.
--------
mrtnfisher
I would think that a published author and a supposedly "respected"
member of the poker community would not call another person an idiot
on a public forum, no matter how true it may or may not be. Just my
opinion.
- Marty
johnny_t
>
> BIG, huh?
>
> In your OP you calculated percentage by dividing by the hands dealt.
>
> So working with the definition of percentage that you used, you maximize
> that percentage by playing every hand as aggressively as you can.
>
> Idiot.
How about I play only 1 hand and win that. Then I am 100% right? Idiot.
Ok, lets get back to my point.
This is NOT about chip power in and itself, fundamentally it is about
best hand, or showing winners and the overall affect that has on image
chip power and winning sessions.
Try again please.
johnny_t
> Solid logic .. if no one ever looks at their hand till all the cards are
> out!!
>
> Bad Troll!! Back under the bridge!!
>
Not a troll. Really. You're right about the no one looks at their
cards point however. The question is about showing winners.
Susan
"mrtnfisher" <mrtnf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0bd85ad3-ae55-4fcc...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
you must be new here?
mrtnfisher
> "mrtnfisher" <mrtnfis...@aol.com> wrote in message
No actually, I am not. I am all to familiar with Gary's "higher than
thou" responses.
That doesn't mean I'm getting used to or accepting it. Look what this
board has been turning into overall. Might it have anything at all to
do with people who to them at least are asking a legit question and
then being called an idiot??
- Marty
ruylopez
> garycarson wrote:
>
> >
> > BIG, huh?
> >
> > In your OP you calculated percentage by dividing by the hands dealt.
> >
> > So working with the definition of percentage that you used, you maximize
> > that percentage by playing every hand as aggressively as you can.
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> How about I play only 1 hand and win that. Then I am 100% right? Idiot.
>
> Ok, lets get back to my point.
No dude, you're making no freaking sense. You said in OP you need to win
about 7% of your hands to break even, and that a nine-handed table
everyone should win 11%. These numbers are total pots. If you think you
are going to break even winning 7% of the pots you actually play, you must
be winning some damn big pots.
You're all over the place, calling people wrong for simply taking your own
definition, which you now want to change throughout the thread.
On top of that, Gary is right, all you need to have a winning session is
to win one pot. The number you are chasing is not meaningful.
johnny_t
>
> No dude, you're making no freaking sense.
Ok, lets try this again.. Best hand. Winners at show down. Cards
running in your favor. (Or the opposite).
This affects chip power. It affects total pots won. It affects amount
of money won.
11% is the number of best hands you get dealt all else being equal.
1/9. (in the case of everyone playing blind).
Luck changes that number sometimes you are higher than 11% sometimes lower.
At about 7% (my guess and limited science), I break even.
At about 5% I go way bad.
etc etc.
Make sense now???
ruylopez
>
> No actually, I am not. I am all to familiar with Gary's "higher than
> thou" responses.
> That doesn't mean I'm getting used to or accepting it. Look what this
> board has been turning into overall. Might it have anything at all to
> do with people who to them at least are asking a legit question and
> then being called an idiot??
> - Marty
I don't think so. At least Gary posts about poker quite a bit. In fact
he probably answers more noobie poker questions than any knowledgeable
poster here.
Don't you think it's far more likely to be spam, OT posts, or the many
posters (perhaps like OP) who blunder about in threads about poker to the
point that it is hard for a noobie to tell who to believe anyway? At
least the "idiot" thing addresses the latter.
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
Well, getting closer.
Your 11% figure is based on showdown poker. You don't actually know what
the true figure is, and you are purporting to. When you play a pot it is
not against the whole field, and even less of the whole field goes to the
river .. and some winning hands even get folded on the river. The actual
number of how many "best hands" you receive during a session is not ever
available to you.
Again I don't think you are chasing a meaningful number. In some wild,
loose table conditions you may only need to win one big hand (while not
getting drawn out on anywhere else) to win. If the game is weak / tight
you are going to need to take down a lot of small pots to post a win.
--------
johnny_t
> Your 11% figure is based on showdown poker. You don't actually know what
> the true figure is, and you are purporting to. When you play a pot it is
> not against the whole field, and even less of the whole field goes to the
> river .. and some winning hands even get folded on the river. The actual
> number of how many "best hands" you receive during a session is not ever
> available to you.
>
> Again I don't think you are chasing a meaningful number. In some wild,
> loose table conditions you may only need to win one big hand (while not
> getting drawn out on anywhere else) to win. If the game is weak / tight
> you are going to need to take down a lot of small pots to post a win.
Yes the 11% number is based on showdown poker.
The other numbers are based on my LIMITED science. I am making guess of
what is going on. I will agree the specific numbers are of an
interesting point, and I could be way off. (I don't think so, but they
could).
The second part of the equation. I agree somewhat. And it depends on
hand type, and specific hands.
The more often the cards come your way, the better you play, the more
money you make.
Somewhere less, you break even?
Somewhere even less, you start losing money?
In loose games, it is true, that one big win covers up a lot of sins.
It is also true that hand may not come up in a session (IE the timing of
action and best hand).
The point here is to discuss running good, running bad, running even?
What that means, how does it affect your play and image?
Your second paragraph while true tends to imply since they are not
mentioned, an average series of cards. And also only looks at your
opponents table image and style, and not your own.
When you run bad, your opponents stop fearing you when you can't show
down a winner. And since you are running bad, you both lose chip power,
and your ability to take advantage of that fact. (Unless you become
super nittish then you will get no action at all and is probably not max
ev).
When you run better, your opponents start fearing you, because you are
starting to show winners when pushed. And you both take advantage of
when they call, but you also start gaining fold equity.
If you run real good, your opponents are hopeless cuz you always have
the best of it. You tend to get overpayed here because your opponents
won't put you on such a strong hand all the time.
This is based on YOUR table image.
So, yes, ultimately, I am looking at getting a grasp on a different set
of definitions here. My apologies for some of the flailing around this
process. I am not sure that they are useful, but just because they
haven't been, or discussed in a different way, I do not think this is
worth dismissing out of hand.
I have witnessed many a good player run bad. And have bad sessions. I
don't think this is only due to being sucked out on. But rather good
decisions not being reflected in the cards. I am trying to quantify
that, I guess at the end of the day, I think that this can all be
included in the math of poker.
Maybe I should take a look at Chen's book and see if he addresses the
math of running good/bad.
garycarson
And when faced with clear, unequivocal evidence that your thoughts and
opinions are simply wrong what do you do? You just persist in those
thoughts and opinions under the believe that if you just keep repeating
them as if they're true then they'll become true.
Idiot would not describe you well at all. You sound like a Republican.
ruylopez
>
> Maybe I should take a look at Chen's book and see if he addresses the
> math of running good/bad.
When I would play online, the stat I found most telling of whether I was
running good or bad was % of showdowns won. This was limit, but I
averaged around 55-60%, and on the bad days it was low as fuck, on the
good days, higher.
As far as % of overall hands you win, this depends on a lot on if you're
getting playable cards or not. Running bad does not mean getting no
playable cards, it means getting playable cards that don't win. Look at
the % of hands you win when you see the flop, not the % overall.
And the table conditions cannot be separated from this data. It
completely depends on who you are playing against.
_______________________________________________________________________
Susan
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
> Idiot would not describe you well at all. You sound like a Republican.
teehee
eldo77
money...provided you're not pissing away your money worrying about this
kind of shit.
eldo77
Travel
Let's say that Ruy took care of the "percentage of hands" aspect by
narrowing it down to this being about -showdowns/wins on the river-
hands in order for this discussion to make any sense at all.
After that, the impression I'm left with is that the original poster is
playing in a game that's beyond his skill level. He repeatedly shows
concern for "fold equity" and other players not being "scared" of his
hand and (I assume) his post-flop betting skill.
I'd say, it sounds like a semi-tight but aggressive game where he drags
some pots when he hits the flop well, but at other times he's getting
run-over by better players and loses a sense of control over his own
game.
The limit may be beyond his "comfort level", also. We're really not
geting much substantive info from the OP, but a lot of abstract stuff
that seems to make a lot of sense to him, but not to anyone else. Maybe
a few typical hand examples would help.
I really don't think he's really talking about this "percentage of
hands won, etc" business. That seems to be an imagined symptom of the
problem. It seems to be about about having problems winning under the
specific game conditions of the particular, regularly played game that
he's talking about.
It would probably be helpful to be clear about what's going on in
practice, first, and worry about the theory, later. Right now, it's not
clear.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
phlash74
> phlash74 wrote:
>
> > Actually, you'd increase your percentage of pots won by never
> > folding. Of course, you'd probably run out of money.
>
> Not true. you would increase the NUMBER of pots, not the Percentage of
> pots. There is a BIG difference. I think you understand that, but you
> have it backwards.
Seeing as how the NUMBER of pots is the numerator in the rational
number you're citing (1/9), increasing it also increases the
percentage. If it was the denominator, that would be backwards.
>
> >> At your table, what percentage do you actually need to have be winners
> >> and losers to do well in a session.
>
> > It's not the percentage of pots won that matters, it's the size of
> > pots won. If you win a couple big pots and lose several tiny ones,
> > you'll probably come out ahead.
>
> Yes, this is true. But this is the kind of the core of the problem.
> Developing the right number of hands where you have a surprising
> quantity of strength, or develop the right type of fear late in a hand.
There is no right number of hands. All you can do is play the hands
you're dealt as well as possible. If you're card dead, that likely
means folding hand after hand with an occasional blind steal made
possible by your tight image. There's no need to inspire surprise or
fear in your opponents, just let them make their mistakes. Those
mistakes will change with the type of game you're in, so it's
impossible to say whether you should be winning a lot of small pots by
running over the table or playing tight and building a few big pots
when you have the best of it. Either approach can be profitable, but
they're usually mutually exclusive.
> Both of these can be difficult to pull off if you haven't showed any
> winners. You either cannot develop the right amount of fear, or you
> can't show the right type of winner.
>
> But your point is why having less than your share of winners can still
> result in a winning or break even session. I am trying to explore where
> those edges are.
>
>> <snip rest of nonsense>
>
> Ahh, now you have dismissed everything without qualification, when I did
> you a favor and responded to your points.
>
> And at the end of the day, you have neither argued against my points, or
> supported yours. Maybe you shouldn't have hijacked my thread, or
> hopefully you can respond more on topic, and explore the effects and
> meaning of "running bad" or "running good", and what can be done about it.
>
> You know, the point of the thread.
I argued against your point by saying there is no magic number.
You're looking for something that doesn't exist, kind of like the
tourney player who thinks he "needs" a certain number of chips at
Level Five or whatever in order to have a chance to cash in the
tourney, and will likely play suboptimally in order to try to get
there. If you come up with the number 12% to throw out a hypothetical
result, and you're only winning 7% of the pots so far but breaking
even (as you said you typically do in your OP), are you going to start
playing a bunch more hands to try to reach 12%? My contention is that
you may reach that number only by losing money. If the deck is
hitting you that day and you're winning 12% without playing too loose,
great. But don't try to force it to fit some imagined ideal.
Michael
U.S. American
XaQ Morphy
> An excellent question!
>
> I don't have an answer of yet. I don't know if there IS an answer, or
> usefulness.
Well then, I think we should actively pursue this topic further. If
there's no useful application for this information, then RGP is the pefect
place to discuss and nitpick the hell out of it.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
johnny_t
> On May 21 2008 3:03 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>> An excellent question!
>>
>> I don't have an answer of yet. I don't know if there IS an answer, or
>> usefulness.
>
> Well then, I think we should actively pursue this topic further. If
> there's no useful application for this information, then RGP is the pefect
> place to discuss and nitpick the hell out of it.
>
Excellent point. Unless everything is known already, and learning isn't
a process that starts in Ignorance moves to knowledge then mastery?
You are not putting down education are you? Learning? Or that we
should all just be perfect before starting?
I wouldn't think so. So I will assume this was not a snarky posting.
XaQ Morphy
> Excellent point. Unless everything is known already, and learning isn't
> a process that starts in Ignorance moves to knowledge then mastery?
>
> You are not putting down education are you? Learning? Or that we
> should all just be perfect before starting?
>
> I wouldn't think so. So I will assume this was not a snarky posting.
........ uhh? what?
The point of my highly insightful post was that it doesn't make sense to
try and figure something out if there's no application for it. So let's
say you and the rest of the RGPers (those who don't fry their keyboards
with drool that is) manage to figure out the magic number and find that
hey, if I win 10.875392% of my hands, I'll be profitable. What exactly
are you going to do with that info? Are you going to sit at the table and
panic after 100 hands because you're only at 10.875391%? Are you going to
stop trying to win pots if you're up to 10.875393%?
Makes no sense to me. Might as well try to figure out why the sky is blue.
______________________________________________________________________
Steam
>
> Makes no sense to me. Might as well try to figure out why the sky is blue.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
XaQ Morphy
> http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
Ok so the sky is blue because of the white light from the sun. Why is the
light from the sun white? (I can do this all day btw).
-------
Steam
> On May 22 2008 6:51 PM, Steam wrote:
>
> > http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
>
> Ok so the sky is blue because of the white light from the sun. Why is the
> light from the sun white? (I can do this all day btw).
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
I'd prefer to let it just die of its own accord, but a lot of people don't
know that. I won a 20.00 bet with somebody who argued that it was blue
because of "reflection from the ocean" of all things, despite the obvious
idiocy of that position.
______________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> I'd prefer to let it just die of its own accord, but a lot of people don't
> know that. I won a 20.00 bet with somebody who argued that it was blue
> because of "reflection from the ocean" of all things, despite the obvious
> idiocy of that position.
Isn't the ocean blue because of the sky?
________________________________________________________________________
Auburn Sam
> On May 22 2008 6:51 PM, Steam wrote:
>
> > http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
>
> Ok so the sky is blue because of the white light from the sun. Why is the
> light from the sun white? (I can do this all day btw).
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
I just checked outside and the sky is grey.
What color is the light from the sun today?
Bonus Points:
What causes the light from the sun to be different today?
Auburn Sam
XaQ Morphy
> I just checked outside and the sky is grey.
>
> What color is the light from the sun today?
>
> Bonus Points:
>
> What causes the light from the sun to be different today?
Huh? It's night time, there is no sun at night.
------
garycarson
> On May 22 2008 6:25 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > Excellent point. Unless everything is known already, and learning isn't
> > a process that starts in Ignorance moves to knowledge then mastery?
> >
> > You are not putting down education are you? Learning? Or that we
> > should all just be perfect before starting?
> >
> > I wouldn't think so. So I will assume this was not a snarky posting.
>
> ......... uhh? what?
>
> The point of my highly insightful post was that it doesn't make sense to
> try and figure something out if there's no application for it.
Really?
Wow.
> So let's
> say you and the rest of the RGPers (those who don't fry their keyboards
> with drool that is) manage to figure out the magic number and find that
> hey, if I win 10.875392% of my hands, I'll be profitable.
I've already answered the question. The minimum number of hands is 0,
there is no minimum percentage but it converges on zero.
That's the answer to the question and there is a way to use that answer.
Later this evening I'll get around to making a post on
http://www.mathandpoker.com about it.
> What exactly
> are you going to do with that info? Are you going to sit at the table and
> panic after 100 hands because you're only at 10.875391%? Are you going to
> stop trying to win pots if you're up to 10.875393%?
>
> Makes no sense to me. Might as well try to figure out why the sky is blue.
>
Somehow I'm guessing that a lot of things make no sense to you.
______________________________________________________________________
johnny_t
> The point of my highly insightful post was that it doesn't make sense to
> try and figure something out if there's no application for it.
That is just wrong. Raw R&D, Raw Understanding OFTEN happens without an
application need. Understanding often LEADS to application.
Obliteration of Ignorance is enough to start.
johnny_t
Today for instance...
141 hands...
6 hands won preflop.
24 hands saw the flop.
Came out raising with about 1/2 of the hands that I saw, so a reasonably
tight table in that they let me have the blinds a bit too much.
Out of the 24 flops that I saw I got to showdown 9 times.
Out of those 9 times.
I won one of those hands as I expected.
I lost the other 8.
1 of those I had the worst of it. I had pocket 99's had an overpair,
and the BB looked like they were making a squeeze play preflop as they
bet large preflog. They checked the flop and I bet, and they pushed. I
didn't have a not, couldn't tell, and I called into their AA. Fair
Dinkum, I lost.
3 of those I was beat by fairly normal draws vs made hands, but I had
the best, 60% or so when the money got in.
4 of those were profound bad beats. 3 Runner Runners, One was 2 draws
to a gutshot. ~80%+ when the money got in.
I won 4 other hands before the showdown. 2 on river 1 on the turn 1 on
the river.
And mucked 11 after the flop before showdown. 6 on the flop, 3 on the
turn and 2 on the river.
This was obviously a bad session. The hand percentages seemed normal to
nitty, and the results were horrible. And it ended up costing 160 BB.
The -160 bb doesn't seem bad based on the results. But still the
question taunts me. Where is the edge. When do the numbers go break
even. When do they go good.
I guess part of this numbers question comes down to measuring "style"
mathematically.
The numbers may help one decide when to change gears. How to change
gears. To get up. To change tables. To understand image? To measure
one's own respect? Are these application enough?
Jerry Sturdivant
> So let's say you and the rest of the RGPers (those who
> don't fry their keyboards with drool that is) manage to
> figure out the magic number and find that hey, if I win
> 10.875392% of my hands, I'll be profitable.
Since the first time I played NLH I've applied the winnings and losing to a
spreadsheet, both from live casino games to on line. I've taken the
PartyPoker, then Pokerstars data (X% big blinds seen; Y% little blinds, et
cetera) and charted and grafted and plotted and curved it; both no limit and
limit and tournaments.
Results? I'm ahead; but I don't know why.
Jerry (scratching his head) 'n Vegas
garycarson
This blog post explains it
http://www.mathandpoker.com/index.php/?p=372
>
>
> Jerry (scratching his head) 'n Vegas
------