Ok Ill bite, I would like your input on my sample

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9758/statsxof.jpg

Thanks alot man.

I'm playing like 18-24 tables if thats relevant.

Your stats look really solid. I'd like to see your position stats for $50 and $25 to see if there is something there, but based on that screenshot, I can only see one potential leak, and it is with your post flop play:

W$WSF 40%, WTSD 20% W$SD 55% AF 4.7.

You win 40% of the time you see the flop. This is pretty much the gold standard; you might get this 1 or 2 % higher, but this is as good as you can reasonably expect. You get to showdown only 20% of the time, which seems a little low. But since you are winning 40% of your hands, we can pretty much rule out the possibility that you are folding the best hand too often. yet when you get to showdown you win a somewhat high percentage of the time, 55% of the time.

So you don't get to showdown a lot, you usually have the best hand, and you are winning a very solid % of the hands you see the flop with.

If we assume that 55% W$SD is on the high side of good, and 20% is on the low side of good for your WTSD%, then why might we describe your postflop play as "not getting to showdown as often as we would like, but usually having the best hand?" Again, your W$WSF is too high for you to be folding the best hand too often, so there has to be some other explanation for why a solid TAg is not getting to showdown "often enough." So if you are not folding too often, what else is possible? Well, maybe your opponents are folding too often.

In my opinion, your AF suggests this is the answer. At 4.7, it tells us that post flop, you do a lot of betting and raising. There is nothing wrong with this, up to a point. But at some point, we have to ask ourselves whether we are being so aggressive that it is costing us money by making our opponents play correctly against us. In other words, if you are dissatisfied with your win rate, one place you might look is hands where your opponent folded before the river. Can you find hands in your DB where you were just hammering the living **** out of somebody and he folded? maybe backing off a bit and letting him bet a street is the answer. Look through your DB, when you have TPTK OOP on the river against a TAg or a LAg, and the flush and the straight draws did NOT get there, are you value betting or are you often checking to allow him to bluff the river? If you are V-betting a villain with a draw there, you are forcing him to play the river correctly. Give these guys a chance to make a mistake and stab at the pot. If you think you already do that, then do it a little more.

If your win rate at $50 is 3.5ptbb/100, you are doing just fine, and don't have any big leaks to worry about. But if you are looking for a few extra BBs here and there, you might go through your DB and see whether you are blowing people out a bit too often.

Other than that, which is only a possible leak, I your stats.

I am still reading your post. But as I continue to read it seems that you are making conclusions based on how you think I would have played these hands. Thats really not fair at all. I would actually play these hands much differently.

Sometimes I do limp here. Sometimes I dont. It really depends more on table dynamics. Lets assume the situation described above. I limp.

Flop : AJ4

Unfortunately two overcards came on the flop. There are 5 players in the hand. Someone has the Ace for sure, and if not the jack. Im not going to get agressive here and try to take this down. I lose 1 bet. Other times the flop comes marginal with 1 overcard or even no overcards and i bet and take it down or get value out of a weaker hand. SOmetimes I even hit a set here and double my stack against a fish overplayig top pair or two pair for a minimal investment of 1 bet. The implied value by limping here is extraordiary, ask daniel negranu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZ-e...eature=related

A TAG would have raised preflop with two limpers in front of him, it probably would have been folded to the button who might call, and probably 1 or 2 of the limpers might call too. Then the TAG tries to pick up this pot and gets called by someone who has the ACE for sure, after all there is always someone playing an ace here you should know that. You end up trying to bet this guy off with just a pair of nines and get schooled for 20BB at least. Not a smart move.

If I know the guy to my left is a TAG who raises his button all the time im not even going to limp QT here. I know he is going to raise me and im not going to try and outplay him with QT OOP. Its really that simple, I anticipated his move beforehand. Its not like Im not gonna notice the tag to my left raising his button. I would more likely just note him on it. Then set him up for a trap by limping a big hand preflop in the same position. They would pull the same move (TAGs always raise their buttons). Then I would let him bluff off his stack and give him the check raise on the turn as he tries to double barrel me. Ask daniel what happens when he pops up QT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhQjw...eature=related

Yep, call it up. Lets see a flop and try to out play the cbetting TAG, oh look.. is that john juanda? Hmm... So predictable. Sometimes the flop comes

FLOP : AQ7 rainbow

This flop is not good for me. Im not going to try and out play a TAG here on this flop. There is a good chance he connected and there are too many cards here that can hurt me on later streets and make this a difficult situation. This situations only occurs on this flop, The rest of the time flop comes in my favor and the TAG will cbet again. I will pop him with a check raise and take it right there.

A TAG would have popped it again PF. The TAG OTB would have been called by the TAG in MP with AK, AQ or a pocket pair. Sometimes he gets owned overplaying TTs on a bad flop by the TAG with 77s, AK, or AQ in MP. The TAG OTB invested alot of money here - with just a pair of tens.

Im trying to play small ball and control pot size. I dont like to build a huge pot here - its unnecessary. Most of the time the flop will come without the ace and I will out play this guy. Ask daniel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeeoz...eature=related

Most of the play you suggested seems to create troubling spots for your style of play. I like to keep it small ball and control pot size while using my reading abilities to get value from opponents at showdown. I would have avoided most of the situations that you said I would have been in, or made more money by playing them my way. You have not even included stack sizes in any of these situations by the way. That has a big influence on my action -as you know. But overall, I would make more money in the long run here playing the style that I advocated. And it shows.

http://i39.tinypic.com/jryc0l.jpg

I will continue to the read the rest of your post and respond to it in a bit.

awesome thread. ive learned a lot from it and i havent even posted my stats. Copying stats was how i first learned to play poker better. i tried to mimic preflop stats as close as i could and try to get a solid AF play. So heres my stats, im mostly having trouble at 10nl. which is what i want to focus on in moving up in stakes.

Your defensiveness is causing you to, among other things, completely miss the point that I was making. I doubt the others reading the thread missed it, but just in case they did:

First of all, I am quite certain that I know how you play these situations, as your preflop stats require that you be playing these hands like this at least most of the time. The only hand that was a stretch was the QTo in the CO; but if you substitue QJs, a hand you are certainly limping behind there, my point remains valid.

Now on to the specific hands:

You limp 99 on AJ4 board, 5 players see the flop, your post flop line is check/fold.

Your primary objection to my description here is to say that check/folding is correct. I agree; it is correct, given the preflop mistake of limping 99 behind the limpers. But that was precisely my point; your brilliant small ball game realizes a small loss consistently in these spots, whereas a TAg style realizes a small profit in these spots. Or maybe not such a small profit: I just checked my DB, and where I raised 99 in MP after 2 or more limps, my winrate was 683bb/100, WITHOUT having flopped a set, and with two overcards having fallen on 50% of the flops. You have to play that spot for set value, but I am winning it 40% of the time preflop, and 60% of the time we see a flop.

Your other objection is to assume that I am going to be playing a multi way pot most of the time when I raise. This is false. In my DB I won the hand 40% of the time preflop, and when I saw a flop, 66% of the time I was HU, and 33% of the time it was multiway, and I won all of those anyway.

This is the key fact that you are failing to realize--that my preflop aggression in this spot is winning me pots regardless of my hand strength. The big difference between you and me (I'm standing in for the TAgs of the world) is that I DO NOT fear that ace on the flop, as it makes the hand very easy for me to play. I wind up betting it most of the time, secure in the knowledge that people will rarely call, and when they do, any caller will have an ace or be able to beat an ace, so I am offering no reverse implied odds. So I will win more of these hands than I lose, and I will lose less than I win, and I will take a tidy profit away from a situation where your small ball results in a small loss.

The QTo hand: Fine, if you usually fold QTo, replace it with QJs, and play the hand out exactly the same. The TAg is going to make you fold your hand for a small loss a few times. Maybe you do set him up for a trap; I tend to think this is wishful thinking, but whatever. The fact remains that you take small losses limp folding where I, or any other TAg, take small wins. My win rate with QTo in LP isolating one or more limpers is 563bb/100; with QJs in that spot it is 1081bb/100. Keep limp/folding and losing your 1bb.

The TT hand: again, your defense seems to be to change the subject. My point was exactly the bad flop, and how it forces you to play fit or fold, but does not force a TAg to play fit or fold. with TT specifically on ace high flops where I did not also flop a set, I am down 2.6bb/hand, which, you will note, means I won back about a third of my preflop investement. If add JJ-88 instead of TT, on ace high flops where I did not flop a set, I have a 0.01ptbb/100 win rate.

You are making cheap folds in spots where TAgs are playing poker, and, on average, winning a bit more than they lose, and thereby either showing a small profit if they are really good, or, if they are merely good, cutting their losses to less than what you are losing when you auto-fold the flop. This explains why: a. a TAg's red line in non-sd pots outside of the blinds is typically positive while yours is b/e, and b. why a TAg's W$WSF is usually between 37 and 41%, and yours is 32%.

You think you are playing small ball, but what you are really doing is making small weak/tight preflop mistakes none of which individually costs you much, but which accumulate to devastate your win rate and, more significantly for your future development as a player, allow you to be exploited by TAgs and LAgs.

I hope that I have convinced anybody else reading this thread that you are not on to something here, that your style is a disaster waiting to happen, and that the only reason you are getting away with it is that you are extracting huge amounts from the fish who don't realize how exploitable you are. If anybody else reading this is not so convinced, please chime in and I will discuss it with you. But I am officially throwing in the towel on trying to explain things to you, MG. You are not genuinely interested in learning, and there are others who are, and on whom I would prefer to spend my time.

As I said earlier,

It takes elaborate play to acheive the results I have put forth. If were any close to as easy as you say (special olympics) more people would be achieving my results - or close to them at least. And if any TAGs style was truly a better style (and by better I mean "more winning") their winrate reflect that. All the TAGs and LAGs should be able to exploit the fish more than I can, or just exploit people in general more than I can at the table.

Therefore the TAGs and LAGs in this forum should be winning more than me. But they arent. Do you know why? I think you do. My play gets more value, more consistently, and minimizes risk better than theirs.

You throwing the towel in on a winner. You have seen a player with a 57% W$SD and winrate of 5.71 ptBB/100. Dont you see that they are correlated? Its pretty easy to easy to see that they are. My play is not a disater waiting to happen. My play is extremely successful over a long sample that crushes my limit. My winrate is so high that even a entire 1ptbb/100 loss would not even phase me at higher limits. Its just that good.

/MG

jshiff:

Not bad; your red line especially shows promise. here's what i saw:

1. VPIP/PFR. I round these up to 13/9, which is basically fine, but I want to see yours go up some, because:

2. ATS 17% is far too low. I would like to see this go up to 30% or so. I have recently been messing around some at $10, and it looks to me like people are folding to steals with the same frequency they are at higher levels, so you should start raising more to steal. Aim for 25% in the CO, 30% OTB, and 40% in the SB.

3. Fold to 3 bet. As a huge calling station when it comes to calling 3 bets, I envy you your fold to 3 bet of 70%. But viewed objectively, it is probably a bit of a leak. It is definitely exploitABLE, which is not at all the same thing as saying it is BEING exploited by the field at $10. Still, look to call or 4 bet just a bit more often--in position, for the most part, and against people with high 3 bet numbers--7 or above, mostly. If you get this down to 62-65% or so, you will be much harder to play against at the higher levels. This is true because the 70% figure is a bit of a magic number--if they 3 bet you with ATC, it is a profitable play with you at 70%, but you move it to unprofitability if you drop down to 62-65%.

4. AF 1.6. This is too low. I suspect that this is related to your

5. WTSD at 28%, which is a bit too high. You are calling too much, which is a recipe for getting to showdown second best too often. I believe this is the case for you, as your

6. W$SD at 52%ish is a bit too low for your WTSD. Your W$WSF is a hair low at 37%, which is probably just a function of not contending for limped pots when you are in the blinds. It's not a big leak at all, but it can definitely drag down the win rate. Bottom line--you have a modest tendency toward calling station--nip it in the bud.

What all of that means is that you probably need to call less often, and find a few folds where you are currently calling. Your win rate is far too low for your stats, which look pretty good overall. What this usually means is that the player generally knows the right thing to do, but does not always know the reason why. This leads you to misinterpret situations just a little more often than players who have more experience, and to make one or two more mistakes per hundred hands than somebody more experienced.

A productive place for you to start looking for leaks would be to filter your database for hands where you took the line: raise preflop, bet flop, check turn, call river. These are spots where you feel that your hand is marginal (or you are trying to extract with a good but easily readable hand such as AK on an ace high flop). You should have a modest positive win rate in these situations, and it should represent a comparatively small fraction of the hands you see a flop with--oh, say, 1/80 to 1/90 of the hands you see a flop with. Regardless of whether you win or lose in this spot, examine your losing hands and look for patterns--the hands that you are losing with, and the hands that you are losing to, and the types of villains that are showing down what types of hands. Then decide whether you played each hand optimally, or whether another line might have yielded a win or a smaller loss.

You can spend a lot of time on this situation, but it pays big dividends to do so. Once you are done with the losing hands, look at the winning hands. Are villains' hands consistently stronger than you were expecting to see (such that they likely would have called a turn bet)? Or were they on draws more often than you expected (such that you could have/should have charged them again on the turn to draw).

I'm guessing, based on your W$WSF at a low-ish 37% that you are not playing the blinds aggressively enough. read post 489 in this thread. If that sounds like you, fantastic; but if any of it sounds new to you, go through your limped blind hands and look for spots where you think you could have bet any pair or draw and taken down the pot. Or spots where a preflop raise would have probably won preflop. Pay careful attention to what villains are showing down, as this will clue you into the sort of trash people are limping, which will show you just how successful you can be winning these pots with aggression either preflop or post flop.

Looking at just those two spots is probably 20 hours of homework, if you dedicate yourself to it. Plenty to get you started.

Post your position stats and I'll take a look at those, too.

LOL, you show your true colors quite clearly here. TY for outing yourself.

What are you talking about? I didnt mean that as an insult to anyone. I only meant it for comparison purposes. Whatever, mpethybridge, I'll leave your thread.

/MG

Ok, I agree with most of what mpethy has said, there is always room to improve, however you cannot discount the point that if in fact his large winrate is coming from exploiting fish in certain situations then maybe it would be interesting to try to incorporate that style on the occassions it does provide tremendous profit.

Example (Check raising a huge fish all in in a limped pot on the turn when you KNOW he will call with TPTK because of INSANE reads etc.)

As I 24 table, I cannot get such reads, but it seems that Mr Poker Hero here does in fact have some solid postflop skills, as my stats as well as others in the forum playing ABC clearly demonstrate . Even if he may get exploited at higher limits... but whats to say that he wouldn't adapt?

I'm not saying that he has no room for improvement. There are certainly some IMMEDIATE changes that can be made to your style to provide more profit, no question.

That being said it is not out of the realm of possibility that one could discover a gold mine style strategy in a game where deceiving lowstakes idiots is the goal.

Anyways thanks guys for posting these stats, its been interesting to see someone with the winrate I was describing and their play style.

I agree with almost everything you have said here.

I think MG is doing an excellent job exploiting and extracting from fish when he flops big. There is no question about that. In fact, I suspect that he is extracting pretty well from pretty much everybody when he flops big. He is probably overstating the extent to which he is exploiting TAgs and LAgs, but I have no doubt that he wins an occasional stack from them as well. I've donated my fair share of stacks to 17/4s, so I have first hand knowledge of the fact that it happens, lol.

As for this statement:

Even if he may get exploited at higher limits... but whats to say that he wouldn't adapt?

That was my point all along. I said at least three times that my comments were geared toward making him less exploitable at $50 and higher, and that if he wanted to stay at $25, there was no reason for him to change at all.

But I disagree with this statement:

but it seems that Mr Poker Hero here does in fact have some solid postflop skills

Look at his W$WF. It is 32% This is insanely low. As he discussion developed, I became reasonably convinced that it is this low because he is making preflop mistakes, such as limping behind two limpers with 99, that are causing him to make correct folds for small losses more often than a TAg. he is putting himself in too many bad spots, but getting out of them cheaply. In other words, he is nut peddling, for the most part.

So, I'm not sure whether you want to say that he is making preflop mistakes or just keeping himself out of tough, but +EV spots, post flop by making tight folds with the best hand and taking a small loss. It really doesn't matter how you categorize his mistakes, as long as you recognize that winning only 32% of your hands you see a flop with is a leak that inflates your W$SD by increasing the average strength of the hands you are willing to take to showdown. That is a point that MG was missing. His W$SD at 58% is actually on the LOW end for a 17/4. Not by much, only 1 or 1.5%, but it is not at all uncommon to see a 17/4 with a W$SD at 60%, because by folding all of the close calls, they increase the average strength of the hands they take to showdown.

Where MG is more successful than average for a 17/4 is in two spots:

1. He is extracting really well.

2. He is one of the rare 17/4s who can fold his overpairs. Along the way, I noticed that his win rate with AA is about 4.5ptbb/hand. This is solid (average for a winning TAg is 5.5ptbb/hand), and he must necessarily be getting away from it most of the time it is appropriate to be doing so.

Usually, these 17/4 guys are as easy to stack when you flop a set on their overpair as they think everybody else is. But MG is clearly winning this battle against the field at $25; he is losing a lot less with AA than he wins when the shoe is on the other foot and his opponent outflops him.

But at bottom, exploiting a 17/4 is simple--bet at him. Put him in a tough spot. Raise his limps--pretty much every one of them. Why the hell not? You know he is losing 68% of his hands he sees a flop with, which means that he is losing even more of his limps--probably something like 88% of them--"no set no bet," of course. So you raise his limps and c-bet him and shut down when he plays back at you--because he CAN'T do it without a hand.

He plays a transparent game--if he has a monster he will let you know by sticking around; if he doesn't, you can get him to fold the best hand a high percentage of the time. The cards you have don't even matter a little bit. If you have 72o, he'll fold his unimproved pocket 9s when there are overs; if you have AA and he is hanging around, you're beat.

I don't mean that as an attack on MG specifically; there are lots of 17/4s around, and that is the way to play them. Somebody who plays 17/4 and W$WSF of 32% is THE EXACT TYPE OF PLAYER the isolation raise is designed to exploit. Is MG less exploitable than the average 17/4? Sure, that is why his win rate is 5.71 rather than the usual -1.5 to +1.5 range for a 17/4. But is he is also more exploitable than the average 15/12--which is not to say that he actually is exploited more--just that his style is more susceptible to being exploited by a good player than a 15/12's style is.

Just started playing 25NL after switching over from SnG's so this is a relatively small sample size, but I hope this is good enough to start with.

Nothing?

Miracle Grow how many tables are you playing at once? sorry if you said earlier but its a big thread.

also

I just found out that without blinds, i have a sick positive red line(196k hands), just dunt know how to post it up on here.

where is the sticky that teaches you how to play from the blinds?

actually what is the better percentage for blind steal??
I am quite blind stealing happy in 2NL

Steal: 48%
@CO: 30%
@BTN: 58%
@SB: 77%

almost never limp with unopened at CO/BTN/SB, with 96% PFR at those spot

I managed to cash in 10.45ptbb/100 over 14K hands

I played 4 tables for half of this sample and 6 tables for the other half.

PM me if you have any other questions.

4-6 tabling NL25 is too little, move up NL50 imo

What? If a person only feels comfortable playing 4-6 tables than I'd hardly say it's too few

Eeek... my winraite for big blind: -22.81 ptbb/100

That's not good at all, right? Maybe its cuz of small sample, but i'll defininitly try to improve my blind game... =/

-22 isn't that bad; it's right on the border of being a leak. Obviously lower is better, but you can still achieve a decent win rate overall if your loss rate in the BB is -22 and your loss rate in the SB is about 11 or 12. It'll be tough, but it can be done.

Definitely work on getting it down, but it is not unusually high for a decent player--getting it down is one of the main things that separates the decent players from the good players.

sounds good. with rates this high I would want to see your success rates before endorsing stealing this often but as long as you are making money on the button and your success rate is up around 55% on average, stealing more is obviously better than stealing less.

check back tomorrow; I missed this the first time you posted it and I have done too much coaching today on too little sleep, and am pretty burned out atm.

Right off the top of my head, though, your button and small blind both looked too loose passive.

I'd like to see your win rates, especially for those positions. Your SB play looks really unorthodox, which is cool if you have a decent win rate, but could also be the explanation for a high loss rate.

same for the button.

I'll check back tomorrow and see if you have posted win rates.

Np. Well, slightly different stats since I've put more hands in, but winrates for position are:

SB -4.17
BB -17.9
EP 9.9
MP 13.53
CO 9.02
BTN 13.86

Overall is 5.77 with 23K hands. I'm running about 2BB/100 under EV in the BB right now, and 4 above in the SB.

I think Jedi is just referring to MG's hourly which would be around 4$/hr playing 6 tables