PTR can give you a glimpse of whether someone is good or not but it has always been extremely off. I can say for my results (and some friends of mine have similar stories) they are well over 100bi off my actual earnings. If someone has a very negative winrate or a very positive winrate I tend to think they are either very bad or very good respectively...anything in between I only take stock in to see whether they are competent or not

And in past week or 2 I think they are missing well over half of hands on FTP

I can picture ivey asking "what in the hell is a poker coach"

LOL. This isn't football dude.

fwiw, i've been grinding 100NL on ftp over the last week or so, 2-3k hands/day, and for each session PTR displays either nothing or maybe 50 hands i'm guessing other grinders have this too

Depends on room a ton overall, on euro rooms it's insanely inaccurate, on ftp stars, it usually is quite accurate but there are some days when they miss out a ton, like now the missed like half of my FTP PLO hands in the past 5 days or so

Fwiw PTR has literally missed almost every hand I've played for the last week. It also missed my largest losing session ever and my largest winning session and longest upswing. It's missing at least 30k hands over the last 3 months that I've played. So yeah PTR is very innacurate and I'm not sure why.

[]football is more complex than poker

LOL

You morans arguing over just how accurate / inaccurate PTR is realize that it's completely irrelevant, and that PTR is still the most representative snapshot of one's results (other than your own PT or HEM database), right? Unless PTR is more likely to miss wins than losses (or vice versa), which is a patently ******ed proposition.

[ ] Understood the post he qouted.

+1

There is some cases where inaccuracy of PTR can really have the overall $$$ numbers signifantly strong, for example if 3/6...10/20 regular decides takes a shot at 200/400 and PTR misses a few big pots. That is the main reason why some people seem to think "it's more accurate for small/midstakes grinder", there is usually less variation in stakes for small/midstakes grinders than HS regs. But for bb/100 this doesn't matter, of course.

(and no, I don't disagree with what you said - I also think it's stupid to ignore PTR results because it misses hands, 100k hand sample size without missed hands and 100k hand sample with random hands from bigger sample are statistically equal)

Are you serious?

Question for you, if I am $5k below AIEV in the last 50k hands but I've flopped 50 sets and stacked someone each time am I running bad?

hahah epic fail indeed

so bumhunting would now be further refined to people who are running bad?

the first half of this (that it is _a_ sample over a large no of hands, so is somewhat representative) is clearly right, but i don't think it's quite patently ******ed to think that there might be a downward bias on the samples, if the problem is not missing hands but is some systematic problem with recording them correctly. Given the identified problem (possible problems in run it twice pots) i think it's possible that ptr somehow skews those hands on the downside - say for example it somehow 'loses' all the money from the second run, or something.

It's strange to me that R-i-T should have existed for so long and for ptr to not have fixed a problem with those hands, nor that if it is a systematic problem that it hasn't been noticed, and obviously it only applies to FTP accounts, but i would have thought that if anyone really cared it ought to be fairly easy to compare some hands in ptr to the highstakes thread or something.

But I don't really follow these things so maybe I'm missing something? Has anyone ever claimed that ptr shows them being a bigger winner than they really are?

I can't speak for the other DeucesCracked coaches, but I have been working with Ansky for basically the whole year (started in maybe March?). My results have been pretty good and can honestly attribute a lot of it to Dani (obviously my poker friends also helped):




I mean, he might not be a good fit for everybody, but he was basically a perfect fit for my learning style.

no money in poker, everyone is solid


srsly there are so few crushers around these days. everyone good just grinds ****ing breakeven and is happy paying more rake than winning money.

[x] Legit Brag
[x] Increases likelihood Ansky is a good coach
[] Subtle

meh listening to someone talk about poker always has and always will be a better measure of their coaching ability than results...

see someone you might wanna learn from -> ask for a short sweat -> does the wordage coming at you make sense? -> if yes, pay the man, if no 'appreciate your time thanks'.

rollover2k

LOL at idea PTR only misses the hands you win and LOL at idea it only misses the second run it twice, which you always win. Obviously, tough games have thin margins and not everyone can win a ton. Some very good poker players are going to lose money some of the time.

Compared to what? There's no other tracking site. So even if it was horribly inaccurate and was missing a large % of hands in a non-random fashion, it would still be "the most representative snapshot" even if it wasn't representative at all.

If it can be shown that it misses hands non-randomly, then there is a strong argument for saying it's unrepresentative (and suggesting that PTR pages shouldn't be used to decide if someone is a fit coach, video maker, etc).

The 'run it twice' issue seems like a one such example.

Let's say that PTR just ignores all RiT hands. Let's say we have a winning player who makes his money at showdown (and loses slightly without showdown), plays a very aggressive style so stacks off pre/on flop a lot (or is a short-stacker?)*, always has RiT checked, and most of his opponents do too. PTR will likely have him a loser even if he's a big winner. Seems pretty simple.


(* i'm not a NL player, my example may not be perfect but i'm sure some realistic example can follow these lines. It seems quite feasible that someone is a big 'winner' from pre-showdown all-ins, a loser in non-showdown pots, and thus will be grossly mis-represented by PTR)

At the end of the day, what matters to me is how much money a coach makes me, not how much he made for himself.

What do you mean, "non-randomly"? No one has ever suggested, afaik, any particular hands are missed, except run it twice. Just all the ones that name coaches win.

Is Ansky a shortstacker? Does he get it allin good significantly more often than he gets it all in bad?

My understanding of highstakes poker is that this isn't all that likely though.

PTR? I think it is off for all those players who have lost

Sigh, this is dumb.

Look at my OPR. I coach MTTs. I am up a whole lot of $$ in them. Live ones too!

And god damnit, use a reasonable picture. I've lost 70lbs and had Lasik since that picture was taken.