finding fishes

[EllinLucky]

Sure, you rarely see the same players, but after 20 hands you already have a good measure of the most important stats such as VPIP and PFR.

I do not agree with you.
20 examples of hands do not say anything at all, only if it is not 90 \ 70.
But it can be a tight regular in tilt. Or something else. 100 and more hands have value.

 

[BuzzKillington]

I do not agree with you.
20 examples of hands do not say anything at all, only if it is not 90 \ 70.
But it can be a tight regular in tilt. Or something else. 100 and more hands have value.

Okay, sure. The more data, the better. It is always possible that a player deviates from their normal play; however, that is still possible with 100+ hands.

Still, I would regard 20+ hands as a reasonable measure of those particular stats. I can be wrong, and I should not consider it as significant as 100+ hands, but depending on the kind of player, it is still reasonably useful to some extent. Especially when you are up against calling stations. If you're unsure about someone, assume them to be TAG, unless the evidence points to the contrary. But someone with stats like 80/10 when I have seen only 19 hands? I am definitely not doubting the stats then. I will try to exploit that villain before anyone else does. Not only is the probability of them having 19 playable hands in a row very low; in addition, the fact that they are limping/calling so much compared to how infrequently they raise, is a reliable tell IMO.

 

[EllinLucky]

Okay, sure. The more data, the better. It is always possible that a player deviates from their normal play; however, that is still possible with 100+ hands.

Still, I would regard 20+ hands as a reasonable measure of those particular stats. I can be wrong, and I should not consider it as significant as 100+ hands, but depending on the kind of player, it is still reasonably useful to some extent. Especially when you are up against calling stations. If you're unsure about someone, assume them to be TAG, unless the evidence points to the contrary. But someone with stats like 80/10 when I have seen only 19 hands? I am definitely not doubting the stats then. I will try to exploit that villain before anyone else does. Not only is the probability of them having 19 playable hands in a row very low; in addition, the fact that they are limping/calling so much compared to how infrequently they raise, is a reliable tell IMO.

I agree with you in the main that statistics are needed and helps. And then everyone chooses their tools while playing.

 

[BuzzKillington]

I agree with you in the main that statistics are needed and helps. And then everyone chooses their tools while playing.

Yeah. Everyone has to decide what works for them.

It's always possible to be dead wrong about your initial assessment. For this reason, people like you may prefer to stay on the safe side and start drawing conclusions from 100+ hands, while other people like me don't mind to make early assumptions that have a chance of being wrong. In those cases, you would have avoided that mistake, while I would have paid for it. It's all a matter of deciding for yourself what fits with your playstyle.

When it comes to 3-betting, a lot more hands are needed to be able to draw conclusions, and even then someone with 100 hands and a 3-bet stat of 0 can occasionally surprise you with a 3-bet. When that happens, I usually fold my hand, unless I have the nuts.

 

[Fastone2]

Lots of fish that play the micros....

 

[PKRNRS]

Fish usually live in bodies of water. Maybe look there.