11-18-2017
, 03:45 PM
I've been playing for nearly 10 yrs now. Up until 2011 I didn't use any tracking software and I did just fine. I decided to buy PT in 2011 and really just left in running to keep track of my hands, I've since played a LOT. Anyway, I lost most of my hands with PC crashes and now have 2.5 million hands in my database. Today I decided to do a comprehensive "run bad" or "playing bad" analysis and I was shocked that I play bad about 10% of the time, and run REALLY bad 100% LOL
Flush draws are suppose to hit at around 19%, I'm hitting just 14%
OESD, 8 outs, 18% I think it is, I am hitting 11.4%
Also AK is to hit flop 32.3%. there abouts, but in fact hitting 29%, In 3b pots AK is hitting flop just 13%
I Understand variance, but after 6 yrs, 2.5 million hands, shouldn't I see this level off?
What I don't understand is standard deviation, way above my pay grade
Thanks in advance for your time and input....
Flush draws are suppose to hit at around 19%, I'm hitting just 14%
OESD, 8 outs, 18% I think it is, I am hitting 11.4%
Also AK is to hit flop 32.3%. there abouts, but in fact hitting 29%, In 3b pots AK is hitting flop just 13%
I Understand variance, but after 6 yrs, 2.5 million hands, shouldn't I see this level off?
What I don't understand is standard deviation, way above my pay grade
Thanks in advance for your time and input....
11-18-2017
, 03:54 PM
11-18-2017
, 04:09 PM
11-19-2017
, 01:10 AM
11-19-2017
, 01:18 AM
11-19-2017
, 05:28 AM
11-19-2017
, 07:36 AM
Quote:
I've been playing for nearly 10 yrs now. Up until 2011 I didn't use any tracking software and I did just fine. I decided to buy PT in 2011 and really just left in running to keep track of my hands, I've since played a LOT. Anyway, I lost most of my hands with PC crashes and now have 2.5 million hands in my database. Today I decided to do a comprehensive "run bad" or "playing bad" analysis and I was shocked that I play bad about 10% of the time, and run REALLY bad 100% LOL
Flush draws are suppose to hit at around 19%, I'm hitting just 14%
OESD, 8 outs, 18% I think it is, I am hitting 11.4%
Also AK is to hit flop 32.3%. there abouts, but in fact hitting 29%, In 3b pots AK is hitting flop just 13%
I Understand variance, but after 6 yrs, 2.5 million hands, shouldn't I see this level off?
What I don't understand is standard deviation, way above my pay grade
Thanks in advance for your time and input....
Flush draws are suppose to hit at around 19%, I'm hitting just 14%
OESD, 8 outs, 18% I think it is, I am hitting 11.4%
Also AK is to hit flop 32.3%. there abouts, but in fact hitting 29%, In 3b pots AK is hitting flop just 13%
I Understand variance, but after 6 yrs, 2.5 million hands, shouldn't I see this level off?
What I don't understand is standard deviation, way above my pay grade
Thanks in advance for your time and input....
I actually found your post to be quite interesting since I've never seen data like this before, and assume that what you're saying is accurate. So what may be causing it?
First, to do good statistical analysis, it's best to came up with a hypothesis to test and then to look at the data. Here, we're seeing the data first and are now trying to come up with the hypothesis that fits, and this is not a good way to do things.
But let's think about ace-king. Yes, it should hit the flop 32 percent of the time under the condition that you take an ace-king out of the deck and then deal a three-card flop from the remaining 50 cards. But what if you have an opponent.
Let's be a little more specific, you raise with ace-king and get a caller. Do you think the probability of him having an ace or a king (or both) has gone up? That is he must have a hand of some sort of value since he chose to play against you. So the fact that you got a caller, on average, and the term on average is key, probably depletes the remaining 48 cards to some degree of the aces and kings. Thus, it might make sense that you're not hitting at 32 percent but in fact are a little less.
And what about a three-bet pot. Assuming you raise with ace-king and then an opponent makes it three bets, my guess is that the remaining 48 cards gets, on average, depleted of aces and kings a little more. Thus the percent of times you hit the flop may drop some more (though your drop to 13 percent does seem like too much).
The same could be true for something like a flush draw. If there's two to a suit on board, you have two of that suit, but you have opponents, isn't it likely that your opponents are staying in the pot because the board fits with their hand in some way. Thus the probability of other cards of that same suit being in an opponet's hand might have actually gone up because they stayed in the hand, while if you just pulled two cards out of the deck, the probability that they would be of the appropriate suit has gone down because you hold two of that suit and there's two of that suit on board.
So I guess it's possible that you may not be running as bad as you think.
All comments welcome.
Best wishes,
Mason
11-19-2017
, 08:35 AM
11-19-2017
, 09:54 AM
Quote:
Making sense of Variance will drive you crazy. When you try to talk about it, everyone’s opinion is different. Sometimes it’s like you’re talking about cooking and the responses are all about decorating. It was easier when you could talk about luck; you could say “that was lucky” or “I had bad luck” and everyone knew what you meant. Now you have to talk about variance, and everybody has a take, and they are all different.
For instance, let’s say you have a roughly square fenced pasture, perhaps five acres in size, where horses graze. And let’s say that one day a young boy maybe 10 years old wanders out into the midst of that pasture with a post-hole digger and digs a small hole, less than a foot across and perhaps two feet deep, in a random spot and for no purpose other than digging said hole.
Now let’s say that the boy has a sister, a dewy seventeen year old country girl sister, bursting at her seams with the gushing virginal sexiness that only a dewy seventeen year old country girl can have, who runs across that pasture in the dark of a moonless summer night. And let’s say there’s a teenage boy, his tall gangly frame just hinting at the muscles he will grow into, who chases that laughing girl. Fuelled by his ardor, his overlarge feet, shoot out ahead of him as he tracks his willing prey by the sound of her giggles. What are the chances that the boy will step in that hole?
The Math Guys will tell you they know. They know that five acres equals about 217,000 square feet, each of which will accommodate one hole. They know that a six-foot running boy will cover about seven feet with each stride, and cross the pasture in about 65 paces. They will accept that with the darting and the dodging the boy might step on as many as 200 of those square feet in the course of chasing the girl, the beautiful ripe blond laughing country girl, in the general direction of the hayloft beyond the pasture. They can take that information and calculate it for you. They will put a number on it, and they will be correct. Correct in a way that will advise you of the odds of stepping in that hole, and help you judge whether risking the hole is worth it, but might not help you avoid the hole if you decide to chase the girl.
The Feel Guys will have a different take. Most of them can make a rough approximation of the odds the Math Guys pay homage to, but that is only one factor of what they consider. They acknowledge that the hole is out there, and every now then somebody is going to step in it. The skill is in knowing where the hole might be and avoiding it. The hole is in a random spot, so it can be anywhere, but it can’t be everywhere. And it’s less likely to be in this spot or that one, like say along the fence or precisely in the middle. They will be as correct as the Math Guys, in a way less exact but perhaps more useful.
Me? I will tell you that the chances of the boy stepping in that hole were 100%.
As I lay in the backseat of her father’s car, waiting to start the hours-long drive to the nearest hospital, I was being a man about fighting the pain of a compound fracture and sucking down the first whiskey I’d ever had. It was the first drink I’d ever had in the presence of an adult. The girl’s mother took the little brother aside, but not too far aside for me to hear. “Honey why’d you dig that hole,” she said. “What if one of the horses had stepped in it?” The girl sad-smiled at me and gave me a little wave as her angry father drove me out of the yard. By the time I got out of hospital he had shipped her off to a girls-only boarding school in Vermont. People hate a bad beat story, but there it is.
So much for variance.
For instance, let’s say you have a roughly square fenced pasture, perhaps five acres in size, where horses graze. And let’s say that one day a young boy maybe 10 years old wanders out into the midst of that pasture with a post-hole digger and digs a small hole, less than a foot across and perhaps two feet deep, in a random spot and for no purpose other than digging said hole.
Now let’s say that the boy has a sister, a dewy seventeen year old country girl sister, bursting at her seams with the gushing virginal sexiness that only a dewy seventeen year old country girl can have, who runs across that pasture in the dark of a moonless summer night. And let’s say there’s a teenage boy, his tall gangly frame just hinting at the muscles he will grow into, who chases that laughing girl. Fuelled by his ardor, his overlarge feet, shoot out ahead of him as he tracks his willing prey by the sound of her giggles. What are the chances that the boy will step in that hole?
The Math Guys will tell you they know. They know that five acres equals about 217,000 square feet, each of which will accommodate one hole. They know that a six-foot running boy will cover about seven feet with each stride, and cross the pasture in about 65 paces. They will accept that with the darting and the dodging the boy might step on as many as 200 of those square feet in the course of chasing the girl, the beautiful ripe blond laughing country girl, in the general direction of the hayloft beyond the pasture. They can take that information and calculate it for you. They will put a number on it, and they will be correct. Correct in a way that will advise you of the odds of stepping in that hole, and help you judge whether risking the hole is worth it, but might not help you avoid the hole if you decide to chase the girl.
The Feel Guys will have a different take. Most of them can make a rough approximation of the odds the Math Guys pay homage to, but that is only one factor of what they consider. They acknowledge that the hole is out there, and every now then somebody is going to step in it. The skill is in knowing where the hole might be and avoiding it. The hole is in a random spot, so it can be anywhere, but it can’t be everywhere. And it’s less likely to be in this spot or that one, like say along the fence or precisely in the middle. They will be as correct as the Math Guys, in a way less exact but perhaps more useful.
Me? I will tell you that the chances of the boy stepping in that hole were 100%.
As I lay in the backseat of her father’s car, waiting to start the hours-long drive to the nearest hospital, I was being a man about fighting the pain of a compound fracture and sucking down the first whiskey I’d ever had. It was the first drink I’d ever had in the presence of an adult. The girl’s mother took the little brother aside, but not too far aside for me to hear. “Honey why’d you dig that hole,” she said. “What if one of the horses had stepped in it?” The girl sad-smiled at me and gave me a little wave as her angry father drove me out of the yard. By the time I got out of hospital he had shipped her off to a girls-only boarding school in Vermont. People hate a bad beat story, but there it is.
So much for variance.
Quote:
Hi BigMouth:
I actually found your post to be quite interesting since I've never seen data like this before, and assume that what you're saying is accurate. So what may be causing it?
First, to do good statistical analysis, it's best to came up with a hypothesis to test and then to look at the data. Here, we're seeing the data first and are now trying to come up with the hypothesis that fits, and this is not a good way to do things.
But let's think about ace-king. Yes, it should hit the flop 32 percent of the time under the condition that you take an ace-king out of the deck and then deal a three-card flop from the remaining 50 cards. But what if you have an opponent.
Let's be a little more specific, you raise with ace-king and get a caller. Do you think the probability of him having an ace or a king (or both) has gone up? That is he must have a hand of some sort of value since he chose to play against you. So the fact that you got a caller, on average, and the term on average is key, probably depletes the remaining 48 cards to some degree of the aces and kings. Thus, it might make sense that you're not hitting at 32 percent but in fact are a little less.
And what about a three-bet pot. Assuming you raise with ace-king and then an opponent makes it three bets, my guess is that the remaining 48 cards gets, on average, depleted of aces and kings a little more. Thus the percent of times you hit the flop may drop some more (though your drop to 13 percent does seem like too much).
The same could be true for something like a flush draw. If there's two to a suit on board, you have two of that suit, but you have opponents, isn't it likely that your opponents are staying in the pot because the board fits with their hand in some way. Thus the probability of other cards of that same suit being in an opponet's hand might have actually gone up because they stayed in the hand, while if you just pulled two cards out of the deck, the probability that they would be of the appropriate suit has gone down because you hold two of that suit and there's two of that suit on board.
So I guess it's possible that you may not be running as bad as you think.
All comments welcome.
Best wishes,
Mason
I actually found your post to be quite interesting since I've never seen data like this before, and assume that what you're saying is accurate. So what may be causing it?
First, to do good statistical analysis, it's best to came up with a hypothesis to test and then to look at the data. Here, we're seeing the data first and are now trying to come up with the hypothesis that fits, and this is not a good way to do things.
But let's think about ace-king. Yes, it should hit the flop 32 percent of the time under the condition that you take an ace-king out of the deck and then deal a three-card flop from the remaining 50 cards. But what if you have an opponent.
Let's be a little more specific, you raise with ace-king and get a caller. Do you think the probability of him having an ace or a king (or both) has gone up? That is he must have a hand of some sort of value since he chose to play against you. So the fact that you got a caller, on average, and the term on average is key, probably depletes the remaining 48 cards to some degree of the aces and kings. Thus, it might make sense that you're not hitting at 32 percent but in fact are a little less.
And what about a three-bet pot. Assuming you raise with ace-king and then an opponent makes it three bets, my guess is that the remaining 48 cards gets, on average, depleted of aces and kings a little more. Thus the percent of times you hit the flop may drop some more (though your drop to 13 percent does seem like too much).
The same could be true for something like a flush draw. If there's two to a suit on board, you have two of that suit, but you have opponents, isn't it likely that your opponents are staying in the pot because the board fits with their hand in some way. Thus the probability of other cards of that same suit being in an opponet's hand might have actually gone up because they stayed in the hand, while if you just pulled two cards out of the deck, the probability that they would be of the appropriate suit has gone down because you hold two of that suit and there's two of that suit on board.
So I guess it's possible that you may not be running as bad as you think.
All comments welcome.
Best wishes,
Mason
Good point about probabilities changing in the presence of an opponent Mason. Are there tables taking this into account?
Sorry about your leg 2pairs. Did you see her again?
11-19-2017
, 10:56 AM
11-19-2017
, 01:35 PM
11-19-2017
, 06:42 PM
11-20-2017
, 03:56 PM
11-20-2017
, 03:57 PM