461 bb pot ship it!

Winning Poker Network - $0.50 PL (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (CO): $218.70
BTN: $12.52
SB: $113.41
BB: $47.75
UTG: $133.79
MP: $81.34

SB posts SB $0.25, BB posts BB $0.50

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.75) Hero has 7 J 9 K

fold, MP raises to $1.75, Hero calls $1.75, fold, SB calls $1.50, BB calls $1.25

Flop: ($7.00, 4 players) 6 T 8
SB checks, BB checks, MP checks, Hero bets $4.00, SB raises to $18.48, fold, fold, Hero raises to $61.92, SB raises to $111.66 and is all-in, Hero calls $49.74

Turn: ($230.32, 2 players) 4

River: ($230.32, 2 players) K

Hero shows 7 J 9 K (Flush, King High) (Pre 57%, Flop 67%, Turn 78%)
SB shows T 8 8 9 (Three of a Kind, Eights) (Pre 43%, Flop 33%, Turn 23%)
Hero wins $227.15

Try to estimate the amount of true 7...13bb/100 winners and 0...7bb/100 winners. Obviously there's dozens, if not hundreds of latter compared to former.

Let's just say there's X players winning 10bb/100 and 20X players at 0...7bb/100. So let's assume 4% of players (just pulled the number out of my head) from that worse group run at 10bb/100 over 100k hands. They'd still be 44.5% of the players winning at 10bb/100 on that player pool and result in a bias of 72% of 10bb/100 winners running above ev. (of course this would assume there's not a significant amount of either <0bb/100 players running absurdly hot or >13bb/100 winners running bad... but you get the point)

You could argue how meaningful this bias is in reality, but saying it doesn't exist is just plain absurd. Pretty much every winning players who has played millions of hands has ran >10bb/100 for some 100k samples, it's not really rare at all. Then on the other hand, longterm (500k+ hands) 10bb/100 EV winners are EXTREMELY rare, out of thousands of regs only a couple have managed to do that (and with such large pool and so few crushers you could argue that even some of them could be on a 500k hand heater). Certainly much lower % of player pool than the probability of 5bb/100 winner having that winrate for 100k hands.

Yeah, definitely true.

Of course it never completely disappears, it just diminishes when you increase the size of the sample. It does obviously become somewhat irrelevant at some point, but I don't think 100k is even near big enough sample size.

If you got "top50 winners at PLO200 in 2012" players and all their results from pokerstars, how much above their longterm expected winrate do you think they'd run on average? My guess would be >3bb/100 despite them all (probably) being high volume players. But again, that's just me guessing.



edit:
Obviously when we apply ANY kind of filtering/picking based on their results to samples we use, we should assume that there's bias. Even if it's unclear for us which way the bias would be. The simplified "2 types of bots" example clearly proves that it's possible that such filtering brings bias. In this case however, I think it's intuitively pretty clear that bias in 10bb/100@100k winners will be towards those who've ran good.

I think our interpretations diverge when it comes to standard deviation. If we're operating on midstakes standard deviation (which is huge), then what you're saying is 100% true and I would back. But the people beating smallstakes operate on really low stDEV, comparatively...

I've seen midstakes PLO pros say they have stDEVs of >180. Mine was closer to 100. This is a HUGE difference.

For some reason this makes me want to play plo again after managing to stay off for 50ish(?) days.

inb4 -30bi graph and hating poker.

Clayton - I think the math you're looking for is in this post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...on-how-917541/

I have to run so I can't run the sims on the things being talked about here but I tend to think you're correct that selection bias is irrelevant when talking about this - once you have the winrate and standard deviation you can get the % chance that THAT player is a winning player. For example I ran the math in this thread recently and showed that after 1.45m hands and a winrate of 9.5bb/100 and std deviation of 145bb/100 the player's true winrate has a:

~68% chance of being between 8.25bb/100 and 10.74bb/100
~95.5% chance of being between 7.00bb/100 and 11.99bb.100
~99.73% chance of being between 5.75bb/100 and 13.24bb.100
99.993666% chance of being between 3.26bb/100 and 15.74bb/100
99.9999426697% chance of being between -0.48bb/100 and 19.48bb/100

Roy,
read my 2 bots example on post #28223.

Or for another example, imagine someone beating that 2008 polaris in LHE HU for 14BB/100 for 100k hands and do the same calcs. What would that suggest? There's >50% probability that player beats polaris for more than the perfect counter strategy does?

tell: timebank-cold3bets flop when he's about to lose a flip

Is that USD or SEK?

Hand histories are in SEK, graphs are the correct dollar amount converted from SEK. Anyone know if you somehow can choose what currency you want to export?

lol, how'd you know? you must be villain. ARE YOU SCANDI?!

just finished a short session:

^wp

Also..

Dear pokergods,

please stop villains to hit their 5-outer draws otr when there is 0,14 PSB behind. I would rather have setups like set over set or flush over flush on 4bet pots. Also some rungood wouldn't do much harm.

Regards,

Me

Det beror på vilka länder man räknas som skandinavien, men inte verkligen.

Ganska bra, tänker jag.

det va helt okej faktiskt

Hip! Hip!

why does tanker come before jag there?

Don't really remember the grammatical rules, but I'm pretty sure it does. The verb is before the subject when it's a subordinate clause (google translate, not sure if that's the right term), IIRC.

heja sverige!!

thanks roy, and thanks for doing those math calcs.

1.4MM hands is a **** ton of hands tho. 100k may not be in the same ballpark.

when i have time to kill i will work on my sample with the same maths.

why does "think" come after "I"?

Fwiw my stDev was 155 in PLO25 and I'm playing 22/17 or something like that. Pretty basic, solid style.

---

For everyone who are not constantly hunting for RB deals but playing instead, I'd say raking 18-20bb/100 in PLO25 is pretty significant. And anyone who claims it is easy to beat that by 10bb/100 pre-RB is just simply wrong, even if Godlike Roy claims the games to be soft.

For starting players, having a good menthal game is almost impossible and that alone causes massive losses and lowers the won bb/100. Add to the fact that their game theory and fundamentals understanding cannot be very high after first 50k hands of poker and that results in even more flaws in the hands played, again lowering the winrate. Winning 10bb/100 in microstakes is not easy and it cannot be expected.

Sorry for the rant but I'm just simply very annoyed by the many new Jesuses, who pretend rake is not an issue and act like some new poker Gods, claiming it is easily beatable even if it isn't.

loool

Think should be before I though, because if I come first, my life power is sucked out of my blue balls by these crazy chicks and I can't think.

/MFN

Clayton/Roy,
For those calculations to be 100% accurate, I'm pretty sure you'd need to have a realistic model for winrate distributions. That is just looking at your sample size and standard deviation, not accounting what kind of winrates are achievable and how they are generally distributed.

Just using actual (or ev) winrate and standard deviation, you'd be assuming that 0bb/100 and 30bb/100 are equally likely winrates with 0 hand sample size. (or 50k hand sample size and 15bb/100 winrate)

Why do you use "I" when you could just add a suffix to think?

Just replace the sentence with word "mind" and add two suffixes to it, like you'd do in any logical language!

everytime i cash out this happens



well played russia, god bless you! <3