What's your take on these stats?

I was wondering what your take on these stats are............

ALL of these stats are from Fullt Tilt .02/.05 NL 6 Max tables over the last year and a half. Notice that I only included the players with at least 5000 hands worth of play.

I seperated these stats by preflop first. But I also color coded the stats by bb/100 (big blinds per 100 hands). The green bars indicate the highest of these players with larger bb/100 profits and the white are mid-range bb/100 profits and the yellow are the lowest of bb/100 profits.

Of course the names have been removed to protect the inoccent.

02-05 6 max nl totals.JPG (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22819&d=1250790285)

sorry the totals were wrong on the last 2 lines for the overall totals and averages as they included a few that were duplicates in the ranges.

I also am including a preflop bb/100 chart with this correction

preflop totals.JPG (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22820&d=1250793385)

I would really love some input. Anyone?

To show a better contrast of the same stats in order of bb/100.....

bb-100 of 5K.JPG (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22838&d=1250866666)

Emrald, this is a shitton load of data so it will take time. I'll try to get to it over the weekend.

What kind of info can you derive from the data? I haven't the foggiest idea on what you can do with it. Can someone enlighten me? Perhaps its time for myself to get soem poker software? Thanks to anyone that can be of use!!!

Thanks Jilly.......let me know if you need me to arrange the number any different to help with what you would be looking for

Well you have some sample size issues. How many of those people do you have 20K+ hands on (even that's small but that's what we've got). Trying to draw conclusions based on 8000 hands as far as correlating WR to stats is useless.

Looks an interesting set of data. I'd like to use some stats packages on it over the w/e. I'll post an update later.

Thanks for pointing that out.

The numbers become ever so nominal that you can't get a real average based on 9 people with over 20K. So the data is based on 5K to give me a data base of 129 people. If after a year and a half I can only come up with 9 people over 20K, I would have to say that the numbers on more time spent would be even more useless due to stlye changes over a spent amount of time.

But if you have a larger base of data with 20K+ hands on the same level of play ....... I would love to compair the stats and add the data.

Are these stats that you accumulated while playing or were you able to datamine some of them? I know that was possible at FT until fairly recently.

If you were playing, which is the case with drawing conclusions on your own database, I wonder how that influences the analysis. It seems like it might be better to analyze hands that you weren't playing so that your stratgies have no influence on the results.

Anyway, I find your tables pretty interesting. Goes to show that there are many different ways to play poker. I love the one player at 33.5/1 being the second-highest bb/100! Funny.

Speaking of sample size, I think yours is reasonably large enough to get some basic ideas of what works. I don't base that on anything mathematical, but then again, neither do all those who say your sample size is too small. I've tried to research sample sizes as related to poker, but all I've been able to find is "rules of thumb" with no explanation.

I'm actually a little less interested in stats regarding whether someone is a winning player or not versus stats relating specifically to starting hands and positional considerations.

Are Limpers winners on .02/.05 NL 6 Max Ring?

Are Limpers winners on.02-.05NL 6max.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22850&d=1250908574)

Actually it looks like "Tight Limpers" are winners more than anything.

That's TMI for me. Are you really trying to process this much? Is that common practice?

I would say this has always been a common practice of people wanting to win.

~ Sun Tzu ~
If you are ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril. If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

OK, sorry for the delay in replying. I started by using scatter plots of BB/100 against the other variables. There are a few things you can see from these such a V$IP of less than 18 is likely to be profitable and one of over 27 is likely to be a loser (I know there are exceptions).

Looking at variable correlations the only variable with a significant correlation back to BB/100 is Won $ at SD with a coefficient of 0.506. Depending on your point of view this could be regarded as trivial - you will be likely to be a winning player if you win at showdowns (Doh!) - conversely you are unlikely to be a winning player if you lose too often at showdown.

Interestingly enough, across the players, with nearly all other correlation coefficients back to BB/100 of less than 10% then the data are effectively random!

Conjecture time

What does this mean? The data indicate that you can have winning and losing styles with very similar variable values. As an example, if you take one variable and two players - player A may three bet based on entirely different hands and read criteria than player B. She may be very successful whilst player B may be unsuccessful. Yet they may 3 bet exactly the same percentage of the time. So what exactly does that percentage tell us?

Overall, the data indicate that there is no magic bullet to poker success based on percentages of certain actions. What you have here influencing the results is the decision making successes or errors of the individuals and their opponents, as in the example above.

Obviously, you can go further than this and look at individual players and their styles. By breaking down an individual's hand actions and looking at where the guy is winning/losing money you could effectively develop a game plan to play him - assuming he doesn't vary his style or adapt his play according to opponents or etc. etc. - and you have the time to do this for all your potential opponents. But I don't think you could justify this in terms of profit/effort.

I love your analysis!!!

It's exactly what I found! With the exception of 1........... I kinda of already touched on it. At this level of play, the only true winners (with the exceptions of course) are those that limp or come in small with minimal risk to play the hands that win big.

I tried to put these stats out so that someone else could draw that conclusion without me having to say it......... but the numbers absolutely show it!

As a result, I feel that playing a small ball style at this level is the most profitable!

Could you please post your scatter graph? That would be great!

By the way..................

The best book on "Small Ball" theory that I have found is:

Power Hold'em Strategy by Daniel Negreanu

It is based on tourney play, but gives detail of small ball played through the hand from pre-flop at 18 to 23% pre-flop, to the the river calls or raises....... over half of the book is dedicated to small ball!

any other takes?