Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
If your regfish are enabling you to win at 25bb/hr, they're just fish, not regfish. Probably whales in fact.
I don't know what your point is. You're just arguing that by nature, any players who allow you to win at 25BB/100 are notably worse than the hero, which is a ridiculously pointless observation. You going to tell us that things soaked in water are wet next?
I define regfish as regulars of the cardroom/poker, who are fishy, not "bad regs", which is another definition that is sometimes used. Regfish is used to signify they aren't randos, and therefore come regularly and can be a more regular source of edge, and whom allows more creative and exploitative players who read dynamics and history well to get an edge.
Quote:
Considering all these terms are arbitrarily applied to what each person thinks is best fit and there is no real consensus as to what defines a fish or a whale, it's really pointless to discussion.
Yes, so people should learn to read from context what people mean instead of picking on semantics for absolutely no reason. You could just remove the part about regfish from my post and it'd still make perfect sense.
Quote:
Does anybody here know what an average winrate is for PLO in terms of BB/hour? I understand holdem is 10+/BB is considered very good. But what about PLO?
I don't think 10 big blinds per 100 is good, but per hour is pretty good on average, but it depends on stakes. I think 10bbs at 1/2 1/3 is not great, 2/5 is decent, but 5/10 is very very good. It's too subjective. Each game varies so much in possible winrate counting in that manner is not useful. Being able to win 10bb/hour in one 5/10 game might make you a very good player, but in another it'd mean you're just another boring reg.
PLO bb/hour depends a lot on the hands/hour. Things like stack depth etc matter a lot. The 2/5 where my winrate is really high has 2.5k max buyin and can match half of biggest stack, and also straddles fairly often, making it quite big sometimes.
Quote:
See in PLO, there are countless of ways to play different hands,
I don't think that's true at all.
I think the main difference between NLHE and PLO is that hand values change depending on how many players are in the pot, whereas with NLHE it's fairly linear. Good multiway hands are generally very good HU as well, and vice versa. Example: JTs, A5s, AA, AKs, even offsuit AK, at least in comparison to PLO where some hands are good enough to play HU for a 3b, but flatting and letting it go multiway would be very bad
Quote:
I would think that playing a nitty style would actually increase variance over the "medium term" (think 1k hour segments), as your results are going to be heavily influenced by the distribution of hands you are dealt over that period.
That's not how it works. Playing an aggro style and having a more NSD source of winnings (redline) doesn't actually decrease your variance. If anything, now you play a lot more bloated pots where whether you win or not depends on whether you run into the top of your villain's range, whether they hit the card you bluff on, whether they are in the right mood to fold, etc.
Variance is variance. It's no conclusive, but all the stat comparisons I've seen show that looser more aggro players depend as much as tighter players over large samples on their big hands. If you remove all your AA KK from your database, even the best LAGs with high NSD will often still be losers (don't quote me on that, it's been a long time since I did stat plugging, but fairly certain this is true or close to it).