These two graphics are interesting:

https://i.imgur.com/z2wSsdJ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DAnmJlU.jpg

They are from the same professional zoom nl500 player (Sphinter) against the same opponents.

Hi grinding:

I agree with what you’re saying, but I have noticed today that some of our posters do take the math/data requirement completely literally. Ironically, we at 2+2 were the ones who introduced mathematical rigor to poker and for many many years were constantly criticized for being too math oriented. (If you want an example of this look at my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.)

However, there’s an area of statistics called Bayesian Statistics where other information can be brought into play, and this area can play an important role in poker. So, that’s what I was getting at. Don’t lose sight of important information, especially when it can be highly beneficial.

Best wishes,
Mason

First I want to start out by saying that I don't disagree with you. I think you made a very good point about statistics. Its something that my journey in poker has naturally led me to study.

I think its important to remember context of what type of play we are talking about. Which is why I find a statement like "100,000 hands is enough of a sample..." difficult to apply to my personal game. When you start to take into account other variables such as live poker, stakes, and time spent, this can start to drastically change your win rate. For example, lets say Bart learned how to play poker through a combination of TV, Books, and playing in card rooms/bars. Bart's win rate was S and it was great! Then he discovered online play, it wasn't what he was used to and his win rate when playing online was X. Now if we take a look at his data of hands (strictly looking at hands) and sample the data, it shows that his win rate was some where in the range of V through Z(A being the highest value and Z being the lowest). That is drastically different than what his live win rate range used to be, Q through U. Which is why I question the accuracy of said win rates based on the statement that started this thread. Sure we can use statistical data to make a very good estimate but to say that a sampling of hands is a good marker, I feel like something else needs to be added to that statement. Like we are missing part of the story.

Not to mention that if we just compare Live play vs Online play we both know that they are different when it comes to experience. A live player may take 6+ months to get to 1,000 hands where an online player would only take a couple of weeks. Using played hands as the metric of measurement for both may not produce the same results.

Hi Qualified:

First, the bolding in your post is mine.

To start, here are the two quotes again from the Modern Poker Theory book. First, the good player:

Takes care of their health by eating healthy foods, working out, meditating, and drinking a lot of water.

And second the bad player:

Doesn't take care of their health, eats junk food and never works out.

So why do I think this is wrong? Well, the answer has to do with how good statistics should be done.

Anyone competent in mathematical statistics will tell you that the first thing you do is form an hypothesis and then you go and collect data to see if it supports the hypothesis. And what we have here is just the opposite.

What these poker psychology people, in my opinion, are doing, and I believe the author of this book is just repeating it, is that they're going into a poker room and noticing that many of the better players are, for instance, in good physical shape. This is the same as first collecting data, and thus are concluding that this is one of the keys to being a top notch poker player. But again, this is just the opposite from the way that good statistics is done.

I strongly believe that if the hypothesis was that studying poker and working on your game away from the table is what makes most good players successful, a well designed statistical study would easily show that this was the main reason many of these people became good players. And it would show this whether someone was in good physical shape or not (and in my book Real Poker Psychology I give one well known example of a great poker player who was not in good physical shape).

Furthermore, if the study is well done, it would also show that there is a positive correlation between those people who are in good physical shape and those who study. And if you think about it, this should make sense. Those individuals who set aside time for their work out, are also often the type that will set aside time for other things, such as studying, which will also benefit them.

So to quote your bolded sentence again:

I agree that taking care of your health is correlated with positive results at the poker table.

keep in mind that being correlated is not the same as being the cause.

Best wishes,
Mason

@Criminal Bizzy I agree that sampling is always an issue with measuring winrate.

Even if you play the same site or location, opponent's change, the way opponents play changes, and the way you play changes all the time.

But I guess my question is what would be an alternative method to data analysis and statistics that would be better?

Or are you simply making people aware that their might be issues with their data?

@just_grinding I am just pointing out the problems that there could be with the data and trying to add another point to consider in the discussion. I am not sure if there is a better data sample or not... personally I just keep track of my time played and figure out what my win rate is based on how much I win/lose per session.

It could be the case that your hand can call an all-in against the range from one position but not from another, or that you can call a 15bb all-in but not a 20bb all-in.


6max BT 50BB vs BB 15BB (after posting 1BB)
BT open 2BB, BB shove 15BB
Pot odds to call: 1.5 (initial pot) + 2 (initial BB bet) + 15 (shove BB) / 13 (call BT) = 1.42 vs 1
Minimum Equity to call: E = 1 / 2.42 = 41.32 %

6max BT 50BB vs BB 20BB (after posting 1BB)
BT open 2BB, BB shove 20BB
Pot odds to call: 1.5 (initial pot) + 2 (initial BB bet) +20 (shove BB) / 18 (call BT) = 1.30 vs 1
Minimum Equity to call: E = 1 / 2.30 = 43.47 %

So assuming the BB shove range is the same for 15BB and 20BB, BT range to call the shove has to be 2.15% stronger vs 20BB than vs 15BB.