Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
***** Official SSSHLHE Stats Thread ***** ***** Official SSSHLHE Stats Thread *****

10-30-2008 , 11:24 PM
Per Oink's request:

10-31-2008 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Per Oink's request:

I'm going to quote this post lest you go back and delete it like the last three today. Good to have you back btw.

Also the poor noobs at 1/2 would like you to stop bludgeoning them. You almost certainly have the skills to beat 10/20 much less 2/4 and not based on your win rate but rather on the fact that all your other stats are in the right area.
10-31-2008 , 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Per Oink's request:

jesus christ!!! what is your sn? im afraid to move up to 1/2 now
10-31-2008 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Per Oink's request:

Positional stats?
10-31-2008 , 03:39 AM
.

Last edited by JarnoV; 10-31-2008 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Never mind. Off-topic.
10-31-2008 , 06:35 AM
Can 2p2 be programmed to insta post Abso's last screenshot the next time someone says 33/23 is suboptimal at small stakes?
10-31-2008 , 07:20 AM
190k hand stat post



what do you guys think?
10-31-2008 , 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorleif
190k hand stat post



what do you guys think?
RB$ ?
rake back?
10-31-2008 , 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Per Oink's request:

duuude..
seriously move up.
10-31-2008 , 11:56 AM
KING ABSOLUTION HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD!
10-31-2008 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oink
Can 2p2 be programmed to insta post Abso's last screenshot the next time someone says 33/23 is suboptimal at small stakes?
Hey, he's only playing 31.6/23.
10-31-2008 , 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBuddha
Hey, he's only playing 31.6/23.
That's from March when I first started using this style and it has evolved since then. It is also likely that the difference is because of less blind play, but I'm -0.12/-0.10 in the BB/SBB I think so I'm not going to mess with that. Also, MT ratio = 7, but that's usually because I wind down a session playing a couple tables only because I generally play 10-12.
10-31-2008 , 01:48 PM
I would have a hard time moving up if I were making $50-60/hour at $1/2. That's really impressive.

The funny thing about stats and sample size is that I don't think I've played the same game for over 10k or maybe 20k hands. I mean, that's a long time to go without learning anything, so I don't feel like any of my stats really describe how I play.

(Is your sample there filtered for 5 and 6 handed, or is that just all hands?)
10-31-2008 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBuddha
I would have a hard time moving up if I were making $50-60/hour at $1/2. That's really impressive.

The funny thing about stats and sample size is that I don't think I've played the same game for over 10k or maybe 20k hands. I mean, that's a long time to go without learning anything, so I don't feel like any of my stats really describe how I play.

(Is your sample there filtered for 5 and 6 handed, or is that just all hands?)
I didn't filter, but I don't really play 4 handed or less very often. If the game gets shorter than that I usually leave because of rake issues (possibly, not a concern) and it will take up too much of my attention. Usually though 1/2 games don't stay at 4 handed for very long.

I agree about my game changing. These stats are just an average since March, although my graph is fairly linear. Obviously, there are a lot of factors that affect the winrate though so that doesn't mean I'm not getting better over time. Also, a lot of the changes in my game are geared towards playing better against other TAGS and LAGTAGS, so that's not going to affect my winrate as much at this level.
10-31-2008 , 02:28 PM
Absolution this is all in pokerstars?

this graph i amazing, and assuming that you are sn on star, witch is about 40% (i am not mistaked), you are beating the games for about 4.7BB/100 playing 7-12 tables.
10-31-2008 , 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
I generally play 10-12.
I tried 8 for the first time the other day (usually play 6) and my head was spinning. Lost track of the action way more than I should have. Did it take you a while to work up to this adding one at a time/make any adjustments or are you just a machine? 8 to me just seemed like complete autopilot/robotic and not very profitable.

Then again, I'm sure I've felt this way in the past about 4 and 6 tabling too.
10-31-2008 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Koby_
Absolution this is all in pokerstars?

this graph i amazing, and assuming that you are sn on star, witch is about 40% (i am not mistaked), you are beating the games for about 4.7BB/100 playing 7-12 tables.
All at Stars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericishungry
I tried 8 for the first time the other day (usually play 6) and my head was spinning. Lost track of the action way more than I should have. Did it take you a while to work up to this adding one at a time/make any adjustments or are you just a machine? 8 to me just seemed like complete autopilot/robotic and not very profitable.

Then again, I'm sure I've felt this way in the past about 4 and 6 tabling too.
I did work my way up. I was a Starcraft gamer though so my multitasking skills were already built up. I still can't keep up at 15 tables. Recently though I've moved to 9 because I have a 30" monitor now and 9 fits well on that.
10-31-2008 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericishungry
I tried 8 for the first time the other day (usually play 6) and my head was spinning. Lost track of the action way more than I should have. Did it take you a while to work up to this adding one at a time/make any adjustments or are you just a machine? 8 to me just seemed like complete autopilot/robotic and not very profitable.

Then again, I'm sure I've felt this way in the past about 4 and 6 tabling too.
Open up 12 tables of $.02/.04 and just play as fast as you can. Then go back and try 8 tabling again. I promise it will be easier. It's like wearing leg weights all day, just not as bad for your knees.
10-31-2008 , 02:48 PM
I started getting pretty good at this game when I stopped trying to multitable and instead just thought a lot while playing and worked to get better by paying attention and thinking while playing.

That's just me though.
10-31-2008 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyT
I started getting pretty good at this game when I stopped trying to multitable and instead just thought a lot while playing and worked to get better by paying attention and thinking while playing.

That's just me though.
Yeah, me too. I started this year 2 tabling and made my biggest progress 1 tabling (HU). But I think there's also some value to improving one's multitabling skills. I really wish HEM or PT3 would come out with an MT ratio filter (they haven't yet, have they?) so I could see how much different my winrate is 2 table compared to 4 tabling.
10-31-2008 , 03:04 PM
Pretty impressive, Absolution.

Do you still get good reads on your opponents? I have a hard time playing that many tables getting more reads than who is capable of bluffing. But I think I miss a lot of important informations like who 2nd barrels and who gives up turn or who peels light flop but folds at turn and so on. Thats probably holding me back from winning more than 1BB/100 right now.
10-31-2008 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBuddha
I really wish HEM or PT3 would come out with an MT ratio filter (they haven't yet, have they?) so I could see how much different my winrate is 2 table compared to 4 tabling.
Or timoK or someone could do this over their huge databases. I think some conclusions could be made from that data volume.
10-31-2008 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarnoV
Or timoK or someone could do this over their huge databases. I think some conclusions could be made from that data volume.
I want to filter my stats by session for MT ratio. I'm pretty sure that the majority of 1 and 2 tablers at the lower limits are fish.
10-31-2008 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBuddha
I want to filter my stats by session for MT ratio. I'm pretty sure that the majority of 1 and 2 tablers at the lower limits are fish.
Yeah, I understand that. It was mainly an after-thought of that. I was mostly thinking of the players who have sample sizes of over 100k or so.
10-31-2008 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarnoV
Yeah, I understand that. It was mainly an after-thought of that. I was mostly thinking of the players who have sample sizes of over 100k or so.
I think the results of this would be somewhat interesting. Filtering for 100k+ hands would make the results more significant, anyway.

      
m