PLaying first HAND!

[WVHillbilly]

Ok, so you're argument has changed then. Now you're saying your CO WR will improve by posting from the CO (before taking the blinds into consideration). Fine. That WR would need to go up to 36.7BB/100 (-13.3BB/100 after posting) to make playing only those 6 hands more profitable than posting from the BB. I don't think you're going to get there.



That's about 7BB/100 higher than my non adjusted BB WR. The CO has none of the preflop advantages the BB does and when we face an attempt to steal our post we don't get to act with knowledge of what everyone else is going to do 1st. I think you're going to have a hard time getting there but just make up some numbers and you'll be a 100BB/100 winner in no time.

 

[x2486]

Why would you get to change my numbers from the blinds?

To show that your method of calculating the profit was incorrect. Your way assumes that every single big blind posted is counted as a loss! I don't have numbers for you playing the bb without posting a blind, and I don't have numbers for you playing the cutoff with posting a blind. So I have to make a guess one way or the other about how the blinds affect your win rate at a particular position. I've tried it both ways (estimating a lower cutoff WR, and estimating a higer BB & SB win rate) and you don't like either one.

Look at it this way. Suppose I play 10 rounds where I post in the cutoff and play 6 hands. For those 10 cutoff hands I fold 5 times and win 1 extra big blind 5 times. I fold all of my other hands. I broke even for the entire session, so my WR is 0. Now in your method of calculating the profit you want to subtract 1 big blind from every round and say that I lost 10 bb for the session. It doesn't make sense, and that's why the results look so bad when things are calculated your way.

Also, you went from saying that posting in the cutoff reduces your profit to saying that it turns you from a winning into a losing player. Your math is inconsistant and completely illogical. You're the one who is making shit up when you try to calculate profits in this way.

I mean you do see that I don't lose money in the real world posting from the blinds right??? So why should your made up calculations for posting from the BB show that???

Because I was using your method of calculation which would show anyone posting from any position to be a losing player. Do you see now that your method doesn't work?

 

[WVHillbilly]

It hurts your WR proportionally to the number of times you do it. So if you do it at the start of every session it doesn't hurt it as much is if you do it every round. It turned you into a losing player when you posted from the CO every 6 hands.

 

[x2486]

Ok, so you're argument has changed then. Now you're saying your CO WR will improve by posting from the CO (before taking the blinds into consideration). Fine. That WR would need to go up to 36.7BB/100 (-13.3BB/100 after posting) to make playing only those 6 hands more profitable than posting from the BB. I don't think you're going to get there.

My argument has not changed, and I never said your WR in the cutoff will improve.

And where are you getting this stuff about a win rate "taking the blinds into consideration"? What is that? There is no "before" or "after" win rate. A win rate already takes the blinds into consideration. If you lose every single blind without ever putting any additional money in, your win rate is -100 bb/100 if you break even, your WR is 0. There is nothing else you need to do to it.

I don't know where you are getting those numbers from or what you think they mean. My numbers are in my posts.

 

[x2486]

It hurts your WR proportionally to the number of times you do it. So if you do it at the start of every session it doesn't hurt it as much is if you do it every round. It turned you into a losing player when you posted from the CO every 6 hands.

And I turned you into a losing player when you posted the BB & SB every 9 hands. If the method of calculation is wrong then it doesn't matter who you apply it to, they are going to look bad.

 

[yotalover]

LOL I've been reading up in this post, very good post by the way, and the best I can tell is that there are some people (and pros) that think it is not only ok, but profitable, to post before the bb? I'm not saying people should post early, just that it's possible to be the correct move in some circumstances. Now from what I can tell, the only position it might be considered ok to early post is in the CO position.

 

[dj11]

Given;
-Full table, 9 hands per orbit...but 2 of those hands are traditional losers, even for pretty good players in effect leaving 7 worthwhile hands per orbit.

-Posting to get into the orbit on the CO leaves 6 hands per orbit, but all can reasonably show gain.

So what is preventing me sitting out every blinds (SB & BB), and posting a single big blind, every orbit from the CO ????? Play 6 hands then sit out again....?

 

[yotalover]

Given;
-Full table, 9 hands per orbit...but 2 of those hands are traditional losers, even for pretty good players in effect leaving 7 worthwhile hands per orbit.

-Posting to get into the orbit on the CO leaves 6 hands per orbit, but all can reasonably show gain.

So what is preventing me sitting out every blinds (SB & BB), and posting a single big blind, every orbit from the CO ????? Play 6 hands then sit out again....?

I'm pretty sure this concerns only when you first get to the table. If you are already at the table and have been dealt hands, then sit out before the blinds hit, in order to get back in the game you have to post both SB and BB. When you first get to the table, you can post only the BB.

 

[WVHillbilly]

And I turned you into a losing player when you posted the BB & SB every 9 hands. If the method of calculation is wrong then it doesn't matter who you apply it to, they are going to look bad.

Yeah when you make up random numbers it turned me into a loser but my numbers aren't made up. They're real numbers and they include me posting from the BB and they include me winning. So I have real numbers that show it's profitable and you have made up numbers that say it's not??? I think I'll go with real numbers not fabrications this time.

If you'd like to play a bunch of hands always posting from the CO then you can come back and post your (losing) graph.

 

[onemorechance]

I dunno what the argument is, but WV is right

 

[LuckyChippy]

If you post in the CO you have to pay an extra blind you wouldn't otherwise have to. Unless you're gonna join a table then leave UTG everytime which is stupid, and I'm sure if you do that then the next time you join you have to pay the SB and BB.

If you play 9 hands at the table, a full round then you're gonna post 2.5bb's instead of 1.5. THAT IS STUPID.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

9 max

You post in the blinds you pay 1.5bb (sb + bb) to see 9 hands, price per hand = 0.166 bb/hand

You post in the CO and pay 1bb to see 6 hands, price per hand = 0.166bb/hand

6 max.

You post in the blinds you pay 1.5bb (sb + bb) to see 6 hands, price per hand = 0.25 bb/hand

You post in the CO and pay 1bb to see 3 hands, price per hand = 0.33bb/hand.

Whilst the 6 max player is clearly loosing out by posting in the CO (the price per hand for the first orbit is higher) it may appear that the player posting in the CO in a 9 max game is doing nothing wrong as the price per hand is equal to that of posting in the blinds.

However in a 9 max game the player is still disadvantaged as he misses out playing 1 orbit in the BTN which is the single most profitable seat in the game, so whilst his cost per hand isnt effected, his winrate still drops due to him giving up the BTN for one orbit.

 

[Poker Orifice]

I'm not here to argue with or correct anyone. I'm here to learn. If I quoted and commented about something, the quote was mearly so people would know what I'm talking about. Sorry if I offended anyone. I'm more looking for oppinions about this thread, and my answer. I'm probably wrong, but wanted to know if anyone else has heard of this angle.

I actually do it occassionally for similiar reasons to what you've suggested. Sometimes I take it further though... & raise it up after posting w atc's.

 

[x2486]

Yeah when you make up random numbers it turned me into a loser...

I didn't need to make up any numbers for that to happen. :laugh:

...but my numbers aren't made up. They're real numbers...

That WR would need to go up to 36.7BB/100 (-13.3BB/100 after posting) to make playing only those 6 hands more profitable

I asked you to explain how you arrived at these numbers. You didn't respond.

I have explained where all of my numbers came from and offered to change them if you had a justification for using some other value. You didn't respond.

I explained my methods of calculation, and why your methods were incorrect. You didn't respond.

...and they include me posting from the BB and they include me winning. So I have real numbers that show it's profitable and you have made up numbers that say it's not??? I think I'll go with real numbers not fabrications this time.

Actually, what happened is that you tried to use an invalid method of calculating profits to show why posting in the cutoff was bad. I tried to show you how bad your method is by demonstrating what it does to the same data when posting in the BB... yada, yada, here we are. You don't seem to understand what win rates are, how they are affected by the blinds, and why you can't just subtract the blinds from your win rates each round to calculate your profit.

I would love to hear what your stats guy has to say about this. Maybe he understands math a bit better.

 

[TylerN]

this thread is too hard for my young brain to keep up with. If one of you guys is right (idk wat to think anymore) is it really going to make a big difference?

 

[WVHillbilly]

I asked you to explain how you arrived at these numbers. You didn't respond.

I have explained where all of my numbers came from and offered to change them if you had a justification for using some other value. You didn't respond.

I explained my methods of calculation, and why your methods were incorrect. You didn't respond.



Actually, what happened is that you tried to use an invalid method of calculating profits to show why posting in the cutoff was bad. I tried to show you how bad your method is by demonstrating what it does to the same data when posting in the BB... yada, yada, here we are. You don't seem to understand what win rates are, how they are affected by the blinds, and why you can't just subtract the blinds from your win rates each round to calculate your profit.

I would love to hear what your stats guy has to say about this. Maybe he understands math a bit better.

1st look at the amount won without blinds paid for a position subtract the amount paid in blinds from that position, get total amount won from that position.

Lets again look at this table:

So from the BB I have won $10,818.60 without counting blinds paid. Do you agree?

I have paid $18,060,50 in blinds from the BB. Do you agree?

I have lost $7,241.90 from the BB position. Do you agree?

 

[WVHillbilly]

this thread is too hard for my young brain to keep up with. If one of you guys is right (idk wat to think anymore) is it really going to make a big difference?

Huge difference if you start posting from the BB thinking you're going to win more money that way.

 

[PC69]

All the ****ing math, graphs, typing, arguing. Holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. Nerds itt imo. Wow. You guys just made me hate poker. I got through the first two and a half pages. Sorry gonna slink out of this thread now. Obv WV is right, but I cant really back up my argument as I cant multiply 6594846bb x9xwhateverthehellelse you guys are trying to prove. lol.

 

[x2486]

I have lost $7,241.90 from the BB position. Do you agree?

Yes, that I can agree to.

I have paid $18,060,50 in blinds from the BB. Do you agree?

Sorry, no. You POSTED $18,060.50 in blinds. The difference is that when you POST a blind you may get it back if you win the hand. If you PAY something, the money is gone and you will not get it back. You PAY rake, you POST blinds. This is an important distinction because I suspect it is what leads you to the mistaken idea that you can estimate the profit of a particular scenario by subtracting the amount posted in the blinds from the non-blind win rates, instead of adjusting the win rates to a reasonable value. Do you understand and agree?

So from the BB I have won $10,818.60 without counting blinds paid. Do you agree?

Sorry, no again. If you have a net loss, then you have won nothing. The $10,818.60 was just money that churned through your account while you were in the BB and then went to someone else. It may serve as a useful way to figure out how much rake you paid by position, but it is pretty meaningless otherwise. It does nothing to help you figure out what you would have earned at that position if you had not been posting blinds, because posting the blinds affects all your subsequent actions. Do you understand and agree?

I'll be happy to try to explain anything that was not clear. Did you have more to discuss about this table, or would you like to talk about the tables that compare posting in the BB vs cutoff?

 

[WVHillbilly]

Ok then. Your answer have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. Those numbers are right there in front of you yet you refuse to see them. I can't help you.

 

[x2486]

All the ****ing math, graphs, typing, arguing. Holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. Nerds itt imo.

Actually, I'm a Geek.

I think WVH is most likely a Dork.

 

[x2486]

Ok then. Your answer have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. Those numbers are right there in front of you yet you refuse to see them. I can't help you.

I can see the numbers. I just think you're mistaken about what they mean.

So, you don't think that there's a difference between posting and paying?

You think that if you win two dollars and lose three dollars that you've won two dollars?

If you'll notice, I gave fairly detailed reasons why I disagreed with two of your statements. You did not refute my statements other than to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't think I'm the one who needs help here, but I don't think I can help you. You are sure that you're right and no amount of evidence is going to persuade you otherwise, but the facts are not on your side, so you have no way of proving your case.

 

[WVHillbilly]

You have NO EVIDENCE. Go play the hands and come back. You'll need a decent sample where you don't post from the CO and a decent sample where you always post from the CO. Hopefully it takes you several years to gather this data because if I have to read another one of your stupid posts my brain is likely to explode. Until then this thread is done and I know just how to end it.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Oh yeah, if/when I here back from Matt (stats guy) I'll post that info here. Once you've gathered your sample data send me a PM and I'll open the thread back up for you.