I've lowered my $VPIP, but my win-rate has plummeted. What the hell is going on?

[texasfoldem]

Variance is a thing. I'm a solid winning player at 2nl. Here is a graph that you could use to show that it's "rigged".
55k hands and I made exactly negative $10

Here is the same graph over a larger sample.

All hands played at 2nl, mostly 6max zoom. As you can see, your sample size is just laughably small :/

I am not going to deny that you are a most likely a better player. You have much more experience. I have examined your graph for the smaller sample. You lose at any one point more or less about $20 (depending on how it is viewed (see paragraph below)). I lost more than twice that in the same amount of hands (about $52). I am looking at your chart in somewhat 5000 chunk groups. As I said it was if winning was simply impossible because the showdown hands were stupidly high. I went from $68 to $16 in just 5000-6000 hands... it nose dived.


You could say that you went from about $57 to about $26 at one point (30k - 42k) but it was not just a steep curve plummeting to the depths! You actually went up several points during that time. I expect that. Even though I have seen it on a smaller scale I do still expect that.

As another example, the far right end of chart you see 6000 hands. You go down $20 but you are still going up at certain points and that is still less than half the amount I went down to.

Note that my chart is not completely updated. I have still been playing. My chart jumped up when I moved over to 888. I will see what happens.

 

[texasfoldem]

...


Here is the same graph over a larger sample.

All hands played at 2nl, mostly 6max zoom. As you can see, your sample size is just laughably small :/

... just one other thing. I know I am almost certainly irritating but: That sharpish drop and break even zone from about 350k to 385k. Was that by any chance on pokerstars from near the beginning of April?

 

[TheGenera1]

I have a feeling you lost double the amount I did, despite the fact I was running 25 buy ins under EV, (The worst downswing in EV terms of my life) because I'm a stronger player. I think you probably lost more because you called more than I did with worse hands.

Yeah, was around early April.

 

[chattydb4567]

What’s that mean

I don’t know what $VPIP even stands for

 

[texasfoldem]

I don’t know what $VPIP even stands for

Voluntary put in pot. If there are any Poker words/ abbreviations you don't know they will come up immediately on Google. It is the rate at which someone puts into the pot pre-flop (not including the amounts put in by BB and SB (which is obviously involuntary)).

It is basically the % of hands you play pre-flop except checking on BB.

 

[texasfoldem]

I have a feeling you lost double the amount I did, despite the fact I was running 25 buy ins under EV, (The worst downswing in EV terms of my life) because I'm a stronger player. I think you probably lost more because you called more than I did with worse hands.

Yeah, was around early April.

I am a reasonably strong player. I am not going to fold strong hands due to a bit of competition. I am not going to fold AA pre-flop if someone goes all-in. This is precisely what I was taking about. The worst losses did not come from playing rubbish. They are mostly playing good hands. I tried to find flaws in my behavior first and foremost. The same silly pattern of losses continued (which seems something similar happened to you around the same time) until I just upped and left and went to 888.

By the way, also, your overall chart does not present much info other than an overall picture. If you want useful info you break it down into much smaller parts. Therein lies info that is much more revealing.

 

[TheGenera1]

Thing is, there's more to poker than just playing good starting hands. You're focusing heavily on what you had pre flop and how it got sucked out on post flop. It's the post flop stuff where your winrate will suffer the largest.

I'm sure, being a statistician yourself, you'll know that AA is actually 82.5% to win against an underpair and there is no technical limit to how often that 18.5% hits or doesn't hit.

Anyway I'm hitting my head against a wall here, good luck at the tables. I'm out

 

[texasfoldem]

Thing is, there's more to poker than just playing good starting hands. You're focusing heavily on what you had pre flop and how it got sucked out on post flop. It's the post flop stuff where your winrate will suffer the largest.

I'm sure, being a statistician yourself, you'll know that AA is actually 82.5% to win against an underpair and there is no technical limit to how often that 18.5% hits or doesn't hit.

Anyway I'm hitting my head against a wall here, good luck at the tables. I'm out

Yes, but we are both hitting our heads against walls. Now you are just saying something about starting hands as if that is the only thing I focus on. I focus on every step of the process from pre-flop to showdown. I have strategies for all of those parts in-between. Where did you get the idea that I didn't? Your assumption is based purely on one aspect of what I said!

You give a great big load of statistics in the form of a chart and say it is the big picture that matters... and I indicate, based on mathematical expertise and experience, that it is not the big picture that matters - it is the details. I even took your graph and drew straight lines through about 9 of the parts that mattered. I could make it even more detailed and create more straight lines at every part of your chart until it reaches as many as 20 straight lines or many more. Yes that still means that if I split 400k into 20 that makes groups of 20k at a time but I could just as easily split each of those 20k subsections into several sections. If there is a context then info can be gathered and utilized.

You even have a part of your chart that corroborates what I said about the beginning of April at PokerStars. If I am going to invest time and money using one particular poker site then I am going to ensure that I invest it in the right one.

 

[BenSprocket]

Look, I will reiterate this. I use PokerTracker. I am going through the list of big losses that I have had. They are all in the last few days. I keep going through them and examining them and in the last few days I get beaten regularly with very good hands. I am talking of sets here and above like straights and king high flush.

It takes a long time for something like a set to come along. Things like full houses should be rare. For someone to have a full house better than yours is very rare. It is happening with such frequency that it is borderline humorous. It would be humorous if I were not losing all my money because of it.

Yes I have seen these idiot VPIP 90 players who end up with 5 times the buy-in within a few minutes of playing because they get a full house every other hand. Never with this frequency before though. I use the HUD all the time, even if I am multi-tabling. If you get even a (seemingly now rubbish) hand like a set, that should be a winner. I have learned that a set is usually a winner... not any more! Now a set is worthless... I may just as well fold it. If I get a set now someone (usually the guy with VPIP 90) will have either a better one or some monster hand like a full house.

I mean seriously, how often do you get a full house? I watch the hands that I "would have won" by watching my folded hands. You get one very very rarely. Even rubbish ones when you fold something like a 72o are very rare.

OMG... and the river card!!!! You go into an all-in with a great hand. Why does that river card always give total idiots a monster hand now? I would not even be able to use the PokerTracker stats to find out how many times I have been screwed over by that in the last few days...please. It is not just me either. Time and time again I see total newbs winning on the RIVER RIVER RIVER... over and over again.

It's called a downswing and your sample of 18000 hands is miniscule. Nothing to see here. It's poker.

 

[LevySystem]

It's called a downswing and your sample of 18000 hands is miniscule. Nothing to see here. It's poker.

Here we go! Another contender

shhh... He doesnt want to hear that. He sees things we dont see as stated earlier. I was trying to reach out for coaching but then he never replied. Guess you cant have it all.

 

[BenSprocket]

Here we go! Another contender

shhh... He doesnt want to hear that. He sees things we dont see as stated earlier. I was trying to reach out for coaching but then he never replied. Guess you cant have it all.

I quoted the wrong post here. My apologies.