h1

$25NL Style statistics results

January 21, 2008

I datamined for a while today at one of the sites that I play at. Basically opened up a bunch of $25NL tables and let PT collect data. Collected close to 7,000 hands of history. I removed players who had less than 5 orbits (44 hands or less) although I suppose though you can’t say that you have a read on their style in less hands, they still could represent data that is relevant to the overall results. I may try adding them back in later and compare if there are some “hit and run” winners or losers, although I suspect if anything these would be mostly shorties who leave after stacking once.

First, I looked for 1/3 splits of VP$IP and PFR, which turned out to be

>25 Loose, > 15 Average, lower is Tight, and,

> 8 Aggressive, >4 Average, lower is Weak.

I think this is to be expected pretty much. The tables are too loose and weak because they are micro tables. Even when I’m intentionally playing slightly loose and slightly weak to adjust to the tables I’m at 17/6, so on the tight edge of average and right in the middle of PFR.

Next area of interest; who is winning? Well,

  • Tight are 1.3 BB/100
  • Average are -2.0
  • Loose -2.9

so tight players generally are winning.

  • Aggresive are -2.2
  • Average -.3
  • Weak -1.0.

Seems odd that all players in terms of PFR are somewhat negative, but, somewhere buried in the win/loss is the rake, and I haven’t adjusted for that at all and I think that is what is showing up here.

Further breakdown shows

  • Ave/Weak: 1.4; 35 players,
  • Ave/Ave: -2.1; 48
  • Ave/Aggr: -4.3; 45
  • Loose/Weak: 1.3; 28
  • Loose/Ave : -3.5; 27
  • Loose/Aggr : 1.3; 71
  • Tight/Weak : 5.4; 39
  • Tight/Ave : 2.6; 57
  • Tight/Aggr : -9.0; 23

So while the tight players overall are winning, it’s the aggressive ones that are losing, and a lot! Unfortunately, that’s the category that I naturally want to play. 😦 Playing tight is good, but apparently the less PFR you do, the better. PFR only works if you’re LAG.

One more thing to add from this preliminary analysis; PFR is evenly distributed amongst the Ave VP$IP players, but 3/5 of the Loose players are also Aggr (since they’re playing so many I guess they raise more; I don’t know how many are minraises) while almost 1/2 of the Tight players are in the Ave PFR group.

Some sensitivity analysis; if I move Aggr down to 6%, there are 51 TAgs and they still lose 3.6 BB/100. If I move Aggr up to 9% there are only 9 who lose 28.6

Should I be happy that I’m ahead of the average win rate for almost every group? It’s a little sad to think that I should be acutally raising less often preflop, but maybe I should at least consider throwing away more hands yet and limp less from late behind limpers and in the SB.

One thing to gloat or not about, is that as I suspected a tight aggressive style is too dangerous at micro levels. You don’t get enough fold equity preflop and later because there are too many weak limp/caller/chasers who won’t fold. Value bet, but don’t bother with more than one barrel or too many bluffs.

~

I’m separating this because now this is another way of using the data.

The tightest players are amazingly tight. There are 8 rocks out of 373 who have VP$IP of less than 5% (and remember; all have more than 44 hands), 4 more less than 6%, 3 more less than 7%, 4 more less than 8%, and then at 8% it starts increasing, so 5% of the players have VP$IP of less than 8%. Now, none of these can be labeled Aggr by my original definition because if they only play less than 8% obviously they can’t raise more than 8%, but pretty much across the board these players PFR is 50% of their VP$IP or better, so they know to raise these monsters that they are waiting for. But they’re mostly losing. One played 514 hands at 5.6/4.4 and won 0.5 BB/100. Three others with over 200 hands were 11.3, -1.8 and – 12.5.

I’m not sure if I can guess the multitablers. I have many with multiple sessions recorded which could mean that they were on more than one of the tables that I had open, but on the other hand I suspect that if they sat out, then back in, PT may have recorded this as a separate session. On the other hand, since I only ran the experiment for 8 hours or so, these players with 15,13, 11 hours must have been multitabling. One TAG with 1,114 hands, 15.1 hours over 7(?) sessions ran 14.8/8.7 and +12.9 BB/100. Perhaps he’s someone to check out more closely.

~

If I look at PFR as a % of VP$IP for the Tight players, more than 1/2 have a % greater than 50%, but they are losing at -4.8.

Picking out some winning and losing TAGs, all complete from the SB less than I do, though the losing ones seem to do slightly more. Very few differences though, except, PFR w/no showdown, winners much higher than losers, PFR went to showdown, losers much higher than winners, PFR won showdown, winners much higher than losers.

~

If I find players near my style; VP$IP between 8 and 20, PFR% between 30 and 60 of their VP$IP and look for differences between winners and losers,

  • VP$IP: 14.6 losers/14.5 winners,
  • PFR: 6.7/6.8
  • W$atSD: 31/32
  • Fr SB: 28/24
  • Fold SB: 70/68
  • Fold BB: 67/61
  • W$ saw flop: 31.1/42.4
  • Went to SD: 22.8/20.6
  • C-bet: 49.2/64.4
  • PFR fold: 14.1/4.4
  • Flop bet: 19/22
  • Flop call: 7/10
  • Flop fold: 28.7/24.4
  • Flop Aggr: 2.8/3.0
  • Turn bet: 23.5/25.7
  • Turn call: 8.9/10.5
  • Turn fold: 22.1/20.3
  • Turn Aggr: 1.6/1.6
  • River bet: 16.9/28.3
  • River call: 10.3/6.8
  • River Aggr: 0.5/0.6
  • PFR, no SD: 62.3/69.1
  • PFR, went to SD: 14.8/15.4
  • PFR, won SD: 18.2/48.6

Maybe all this means is that the winners caught better hands? They won more often at SD, c-bet more often, won without SD slightly more often, but even won at SD more often after PFR. Interesting, 2/3 of these players are winning though, and on average are winning 4.4 BB/100.

~

If I compare some of these to my stats, my VP$IP fr SB is way higher, my Won $ when saw flop is the same as the losers, not the winners, Went to SD is slightly higher than the losers, Won at SD is always close to 50, my bet/raise after PFR is higher than both, PFR fold is close to the winners, I bet slightly more often, call slightly less on the flop so my flop aggression is higher, but my turn bet/raise rates are almost half either of these players (!, my attempts to control pot size, I think. Probably a misplaced thought process at this level), and all my flop, turn and river folds are about 1% higher than both.

My buddy who wins with 1,114 hands has a VP%IP fr SB of 14%, saw a flop all hands of 12% vrs my 19, but we won when we saw a flop of both 31%, but he’s only c-betting 45%(!), folding 14% after PFR as opposed to me folding 6% after PFR. Flop/turn/river aggression of 3.1/6.3/0.0 as opposed to my 4.2/1.1/1.5. It sounds like he’s more willing to let his hands go on the flop even after PFR, but value bets and increases the pressure on later streets, though his W$ at SD is only 43%. He’s got a nice 13BB/100 win rate though, so he’s getting value when he does win. Possibly some of the losses may be short stack flop shoves; who knows.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: