Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2017, 02:34 PM   #19376
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
So, inspired by Angrist's charts, I decided to take my data and play with them in Excel yesterday.

<snip>

That's why, I divided session profit by session duration to get an hourly BB/hr rate per session. This gave me this:

<snip>

What I wanted to do is do the thing Angrist does by tracking my hourly based on the last 100, 500 and 1000 hours. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a way to do that on Excel. I am not even sure that this is the stat I should actually be attempting this with.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to do it, I will be happy to hear them.

Why not look at profit in BB/hr vs session length? It'll indicate if you're actually playing worse or better in longer sessions without masking the effect of simply having more hours at the table.


I make my trailing winrate figure in Matlab. All the sessions are ordered from earliest to latest in my log, so I first calculate a running total of cumulative hours played. Then I walk through the list of session and to a search for any entries with lower total cumulative hours to that entry, and within 100 or 500 hours of it. Once I know that list of sessions I just sum up the hours and the winnings for them. So the sample isn't actually exactly 100 or 500 hours, but it'll be within a session of it and should be only +- 2-4 hours in most cases.


In Excel that's a little more annoying IMO.

You can easily calculate cumulative hours. Then you need a second column that's just "cumulative - trailing distance" (100 or 500 or whatever).

Now you need to use the "sumif" function like this:

=SUMIF($L$2:L3,">"&Q3,$F$2:F3)

where column L contains my cumulative hours, column F contains my session winnings, and column Q has my calculated "cumulative-limit" value.

That calculates your total win/loss for the trailing limit hours. Then do the same thing for the trailing hours themselves:

=SUMIF($L$2:L3,">"&Q3,$G$2:G3)

where column G is the number of hours in each session.

You'll see the trailing hours float around a little bit as the last session included changes length, but most of mine were < 105 hours for each entry.

Then you can plot the trailing winrate vs session number or total hours played or whatever.



I hope that helps. I'm really interested in seeing such a figure from another player.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 02:45 PM   #19377
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Why not look at profit in BB/hr vs session length? It'll indicate if you're actually playing worse or better in longer sessions without masking the effect of simply having more hours at the table.
Sure, I can do that.
Quote:
In Excel that's a little more annoying IMO.

You can easily calculate cumulative hours. Then you need a second column that's just "cumulative - trailing distance" (100 or 500 or whatever).

Now you need to use the "sumif" function like this:

=SUMIF($L$2:L3,">"&Q3,$F$2:F3)

where column L contains my cumulative hours, column F contains my session winnings, and column Q has my calculated "cumulative-limit" value.

That calculates your total win/loss for the trailing limit hours. Then do the same thing for the trailing hours themselves:

=SUMIF($L$2:L3,">"&Q3,$G$2:G3)

where column G is the number of hours in each session.

You'll see the trailing hours float around a little bit as the last session included changes length, but most of mine were < 105 hours for each entry.

Then you can plot the trailing winrate vs session number or total hours played or whatever.
Ok, I need to read this carefully to get the hang of it, but i ll give it a try.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 09:31 PM   #19378
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Ok, some questions on some things I need to understand better/i m having problems with.
Quote:
Then I walk through the list of session and to a search for any entries with lower total cumulative hours to that entry, and within 100 or 500 hours of it. Once I know that list of sessions I just sum up the hours and the winnings for them. So the sample isn't actually exactly 100 or 500 hours, but it'll be within a session of it and should be only +- 2-4 hours in most cases
You don't mean manually, do you? because that would be a pain.
Quote:
You can easily calculate cumulative hours. Then you need a second column that's just "cumulative - trailing distance" (100 or 500 or whatever).
Ok, I did a column with cumulative hours by creating the formula (=E2+E3), where basically, each cell is the sum of the current cell and the previous cell.

but then I tried to do a new column with the formula (=F20-100) to figure out the trailing distance, but I get either gibberish or numbers that don't add up.


Quote:
where column L contains my cumulative hours, column F contains my session winnings, and column Q has my calculated "cumulative-limit" value.
I think I understand the first two, but the last one is the one I am trying to figure above and I can't correct?
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 03:10 AM   #19379
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Reader View Post
Good job, DK.

As a plo reg I've got to say NLHE had way more room for exploit and I'd therefore way more fun in a good game. NLHE is just tougher that's all, at high stakes people are better. PLO don't necessarily offer but get edges inherently. Fish who move to PLO usually lose less or slower there (win sometimes to balance out).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Clark View Post
PLO is actually much, much easier to play and the difference between how people play and how they are supposed to play is much bigger. The fish are fishier. They are either nut peddlers who dont get the nuts often enough in hold em or they are the ppl who want to play every hand and will be wiped out in nlhe

There are multiple inflection points in Omaha so you can get away with playing solely to control variance (flatting AAxx from the SB, for example, never 3betting) and always take pot control lines, so your style can define your BR.
I used to be a ftp reg at 5/10 plo for about 3 years. Not that this is all wrong (sol nails the first sentence), but I agree with very little of it. Name dropping is *the worst* but at a WPT event I was talking with Anthony Zimo who has a 25k plo bracelet while playing some 5/10/20 plo and he reiterated how much better holdem games are to exploit fish.

JB really gives very, very poor advice in every thread I've seen. It's a bad look.
aoFrantic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 03:27 AM   #19380
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

^ and yet I was called "rude" for suggesting he drop down in stakes after reading his travesty of HH's
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:32 AM   #19381
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I've grown up enough to be happy for anyone who wins, or claims to win at poker. When I was in my teens/early 20s I was definitely more jealous of players who had more success, but rather than being an ******* I actually improved my game to win at medium/high stakes. Maybe he wins at his stakes. Good for him. But, this forum has been infected with quite a bit of poor advice in the past few weeks.
aoFrantic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 12:02 PM   #19382
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
Ok, some questions on some things I need to understand better/i m having problems with.


You don't mean manually, do you? because that would be a pain.
No. Way too much of a pain. Just a for loop. (Couldn't see a quick way to do it with matrix math :shrug

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
Ok, I did a column with cumulative hours by creating the formula (=E2+E3), where basically, each cell is the sum of the current cell and the previous cell.
This looks wrong and circular.

Using the column notation that I had, session hours is in G, cumulative hours is in L.

So L1 is : =G1

L2 is : =L1+G2

Then you can drag L2 down. and get stuff that looks like:

L3 is: =L2+G3


Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
but then I tried to do a new column with the formula (=F20-100) to figure out the trailing distance, but I get either gibberish or numbers that don't add up.
This one should be super easy once you have column L working right.

In column Q you just need:

Q1 is: =L1 - 100 (then drag/fill the rest of the column)

or -500, or whatever "trailing" period you're interested in.

Every entry in Q is 100 lower than the corresponding entry in L.the actual calculation of the trailing distance itself (which should always be close to your target 100) is the result of one of the sumif calls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
I think I understand the first two, but the last one is the one I am trying to figure above and I can't correct?
I think your problem is the cumulative hours column. It should be monotonically increasing.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 12:08 PM   #19383
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, it's not working. I did it your way for cumulative hours and I get the same results as before - which did make sense. Maybe it's the cell format?

I am using [h]:mm.

PS. Now that I notice, if you deduct 1 from L1, it's actually deducting 24 hrs. However, the format on the cell is also [h]:mm, so I don't get it.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 12:18 PM   #19384
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Oh ... I just have "hours"

So a half hour is 0.5, maybe make that conversion in a new column.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 12:25 PM   #19385
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I wont disagree with sol, tbh i dont fully understand the exploitability argument.

I assume its along the lines of equities run farther apart in nl so its possible to play educated with a higher edge. Also the ability to have unlimited bet sizing which adds an interesting dynamic to the game.

While I'd agree, i believe live low stakes plo sees such immense errors that the edge still favors the intelligent player relatively well. I saw bare bottom 2 pair get all in in a $4k pot last month. In 1/2. So this isnt exactly a game of "thinner edges".

I would say that live plo is an easier game to play overall. I tried to convince my gf to learn it over nl. At the lowest stakes, it is mostly a binary decision tree.

Do you have the nuts?

If yes -> pot
If no -> fold

Id disagree that the fish lose less in plo. I understand they can have bigger wins, and that closer equities means smoother win/loss amongst players, but a poor player's losses can be substantial and can trigger a true quit (which is the biggest reason why plo is actually a pretty poor game format for longevity imo)

Probably about 80% of the nl players i play with are the same regulars from 5 years ago. Plo is a revolving door.
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 12:28 PM   #19386
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
Oh ... I just have "hours"

So a half hour is 0.5, maybe make that conversion in a new column.
I figured it out. You need to subtract 100/24 because for some reason Excel substracts time as a fraction of a day.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 01:13 PM   #19387
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Regarding PLO, when the money gets in *early* in a hand, like when fish are re-potting each other preflop, the equities are generally close and they're not really making *huge* mistakes getting it in. So they win and lose a lot of pots in nearly coinflip situations and selectively remember the wins more than the losses.

When the money starts getting in later in a hand, like on the turn, that's when we can have massive edges on them with dominated and counterfeited draws or freerolls. But that gets us back into the deep stack situation where you need to be very well rolled to even get that far in a hand. Bottom two pair for $4k ... or 20BI for NLHE.

I think you need a little more than that binary tree in a small player pool because they *will* adjust to you only putting money in with the nuts. But that additional adjustment can be as simple as flatting pre and checking the flop to let them bomb it for you.

Many non-whale fish can't handle the swings of PLO and stop playing. I've seen it almost kill an entire room because half the players went broke and couldn't play at all until the first of the month.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 01:33 PM   #19388
bwslim69
I'm a Diva, Bruh
 
bwslim69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: TPS reports
Posts: 24,038
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaritia View Post
I wont disagree with sol, tbh i dont fully understand the exploitability argument.



I assume its along the lines of equities run farther apart in nl so its possible to play educated with a higher edge. Also the ability to have unlimited bet sizing which adds an interesting dynamic to the game.



While I'd agree, i believe live low stakes plo sees such immense errors that the edge still favors the intelligent player relatively well. I saw bare bottom 2 pair get all in in a $4k pot last month. In 1/2. So this isnt exactly a game of "thinner edges".



I would say that live plo is an easier game to play overall. I tried to convince my gf to learn it over nl. At the lowest stakes, it is mostly a binary decision tree.



Do you have the nuts?



If yes -> pot

If no -> fold



Id disagree that the fish lose less in plo. I understand they can have bigger wins, and that closer equities means smoother win/loss amongst players, but a poor player's losses can be substantial and can trigger a true quit (which is the biggest reason why plo is actually a pretty poor game format for longevity imo)



Probably about 80% of the nl players i play with are the same regulars from 5 years ago. Plo is a revolving door.


My inclination is that this is more or less correct. However I would like to calculate long term risk adjusted win rates for each and compare. 2 problems as I see it tho:

1) True Long term in PLO is how long?
2) The game is still very much in its initial growth phase amongst the mass rec player pool so presumably will get tougher before long term is even realized


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bwslim69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 01:39 PM   #19389
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I've played in many 1/3/5 and 2/5 PLO games that have seen me have a winrate of near ~$100/hr over 300+ hr samples. These games all had whales that were either proven not sustainable or I know are on their last legs. In PLO you just can't save people from themselves. The player pools in most places just aren't large enough for the game. Like, it helps when you have whales dropping 5 figures in a night and six figures in a year but most places just don't have this.

As you've said, you can get in a 1/2 PLO game where you have $4k pots. If you're in a medium sized city where the PLO runs half the nights when the whales are playing, good luck even playing the 2/5 (or god forbid just 1/2) game the other nights after losing two $4k pots the night before (spoiler alert: it sucks!)

Fwiw I'd much, much rather play a "tough" NLHE game than a PLO game without whales. I don't want my night and year dictated by showdown value. That's what PLO is.
aoFrantic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 02:14 PM   #19390
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,921
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
No, it's not working. I did it your way for cumulative hours and I get the same results as before - which did make sense. Maybe it's the cell format?

I am using [h]:mm.

PS. Now that I notice, if you deduct 1 from L1, it's actually deducting 24 hrs. However, the format on the cell is also [h]:mm, so I don't get it.


Convert hours to decimal places. Excel doesn't like working in hours + minutes
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:38 PM   #19391
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Ok, finally made it.

So, here's Hourly Profit by Session Duration.



And here's BB/hr winrate based on 100 and 500 hour increments:



As you can see, last 100 hours are pretty unreliable, whereas last 500 hours are somewhat stable.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:46 PM   #19392
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,921
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances



I might have missed this, but how many hours do you have?
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:50 PM   #19393
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

2400.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 06:53 PM   #19394
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Cool!

I'm not sure how much I buy that trendline in the hourly profits figure .... there's so much noise in the data it's hard to say if you really have a peak "winrate efficiency" around 6-8 hours session length. It's enough to say that session length is not *strongly* correlated to winrate at least (for the given sample).

The X axis on your trailing winrate figure is odd ... what is that? Session number?

Either way, it confirms my observations about my own winrate data over 100 hour samples being unreliable and wildly different. Even the 500 hour samples cover a range of 5-15 BB/hr easily.

Impressive overall results though.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 07:43 AM   #19395
water69
grinder
 
water69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 457
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Imo no amount of sample size in live poker is reliable. The number everyone talks about is 1K hours and that COULD be enough if you run somewhere close to EV but 500 hour downswings/heaters are way possible which would make a 1K hour sample size way too small.

You need several thousand hours and this has been said a bunch but I'll echo it: even with a 1K hour sample, there's no way you're the same player at hour 1 and hour 1K and it's pretty likely the games have changed some in that time period also.
water69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 08:12 AM   #19396
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by water69 View Post
Imo no amount of sample size in live poker is reliable. The number everyone talks about is 1K hours and that COULD be enough if you run somewhere close to EV but 500 hour downswings/heaters are way possible which would make a 1K hour sample size way too small.

You need several thousand hours and this has been said a bunch but I'll echo it: even with a 1K hour sample, there's no way you're the same player at hour 1 and hour 1K and it's pretty likely the games have changed some in that time period also.
Depends on how much you play. If you play full time and are playing in the range of 150 hrs a month, the games aren't changing in 6-8 months. Ive been playing pretty much full time for 18 months now and I dont see much change in my games at all. My style has evolved somewhat and Ive seen lots of young guys come and go but for the most part the games are the same.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 08:34 AM   #19397
water69
grinder
 
water69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 457
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Good point Mike. I played full time for a little over a year and you can put in 1K hours pretty quickly. I guess my point is that there's a lot of factors that come into play for calculating a true WR and most (if not all) are always changing (atleast at some rate). Making it hard to accumulate a big enough sample size with enough factors being the same. Because even in that year where I played full time, I was changing as a player and plugging leaks and making less mistakes by the end of that year than I was at the beginning without a doubt.

And also like I said, maybe the games I played in (or my style) were higher variance than most, but what I realized while playing full time is that variance plays a large role in winning and losing over a longer period than I ever thought. I still think 2-3K hours might not be enough of a sample size especially if you've had a few big swings in either direction.

Last edited by water69; 08-02-2017 at 08:39 AM.
water69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 12:24 PM   #19398
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I used to be a ftp reg at 5/10 plo for about 3 years. Not that this is all wrong (sol nails the first sentence), but I agree with very little of it. Name dropping is *the worst* but at a WPT event I was talking with Anthony Zimo who has a 25k plo bracelet while playing some 5/10/20 plo and he reiterated how much better holdem games are to exploit fish.

JB really gives very, very poor advice in every thread I've seen. It's a bad look.
You are misinterpreting what i said. Of course its easier to exploit fish in hold em. Equities run so much closer together in omaha. I just said omaha is easier to play because the decisions are easier. A lot of the flops play themselves and the bluff spots are more obvious and blockers matter more. Its easier to identify ranges based on flop texture so Its not as mentally grueling.

Also people play too many or too few hands so its easier to make adjustments.

Last edited by JB Clark; 08-02-2017 at 12:30 PM.
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 12:40 PM   #19399
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Reader View Post
Good job, DK.

As a plo reg I've got to say NLHE had way more room for exploit and I'd therefore way more fun in a good game. NLHE is just tougher that's all, at high stakes people are better. PLO don't necessarily offer but get edges inherently. Fish who move to PLO usually lose less or slower there (win sometimes to balance out).
Looks like sol actually said same thing i did, so i guess norhing i say will be right. Oh well. Omaha gives the fishiest of the fish a fighting chance. That can be a good thing
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 12:40 PM   #19400
MIB211
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,011
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Clark View Post
You are misinterpreting what i said. Of course its easier to exploit fish in hold em. Equities run so much closer together in omaha. I just said omaha is easier to play because the decisions are easier. A lot of the flops play themselves and the bluff spots are more obvious and blockers matter more. Its easier to identify ranges based on flop texture so Its not as mentally grueling.

Also people play too many or too few hands so its easier to make adjustments.
I agree with all of this. In PLO, even short-handed, it's basically never necessary to make a pure bluff. You can let your cards determine when to bluff and basically just bluff hands that have significant equity or block the nuts (i.e. nut flush blocker or two Ts in your hand on a 987r board). Oddly enough despite the fact that people have more cards, hand reading is usually easier too. You don't have to worry about how to play your AK when you whiff, because in PLO if you whiff you can just fold.
MIB211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive