Kind of a parallel topic to the VPIP thread I created over a year ago, here's another question to put towards the regulars who use poker stats and have an understanding (or assumption) of what they mean.

Question: Regardless of which tracker/HUD you use, have you ever noticed a player's PFR exceed his VPIP? As in, 18/20. If so, please state the tracker and version you use.

Before I explain my motivation behind posting this, I'd like to hear some of your input. I'm not necessarily looking for the *technically* correct definition (which I think I now know and we will inevitably discuss), but rather trying to get an idea of what the universally held belief or assumption is.

I don't think I've ever seen that (PT3) and I really don't see how it's technically possible. By definition if you PFR you VPIP so please explain how you think this is possible?

Originally Posted by WVHillbilly

I don't think I've ever seen that (PT3) and I really don't see how it's technically possible. By definition if you PFR you VPIP so please explain how you think this is possible?

Bingo! My thoughts exactly, but I'm being argued in the other direction and I'm beginning to lean that way. Before I go into more detail I'd like to get further input though, so as not to "taint" the survey results.

So have you ever seen it in game?

It makes zero sense to me. Like WV said, if you are PFR'ing, then you are VPIP'ing, therefore 1=1. There is no way to PFR without VPIP'ing.

Edit: after reading that, I think it would look hilarious to someone who knows nothing of poker.

Given PFR has to be greater than or equal to VPIP then no I have never seen it nor can I think of a situation where someone could be at 18/20 on my HUD.

PFR is the % of hands one raises, whether open raise, 3b etc before the flop.
VPIP is the % of hands you play, regardless of your method of entering the pot.
So if you raise you're playing the hand, thereby PFR cannot increase without VPIP increasing and therefore can never be more than that players VPIP?

HEM. Never seen it in game because it's not possible.

As said never seen PFR > VPIP.

Never seen it. Don't think it's possible, so I guess that means I'm agreeing with WVH. Now that I think about it THAT can't be good for anyone. But, still, no, I don't see how it's possible.

@Blue, I assume you have your terms flipped there.

As far as HUDs I've used PT3 (briefly) HM2 (briefly) and HM1 which is my standard and preferred HUD. Don't see how it would be possible in any of them, unless one, or more, of them are calculating one or the other of the stats in some weird way.

I'm really straining trying to think of the technicality you're inevitably going to refer to which makes it arguably possible. It's gunna keep me awake now. Dammit lol

The best I can come up with is where you post blinds instead of waiting and raise, where te players in the blinds have already left the table (but still appear to still be there, software just instafolds them when action gets there).
This obviously still should increase both VPIP and PFR, but I'm thinking there may be some kind of coding error that treats this scenario as a walk?? (which I believe you said in your VPIP thread would make hand not count towards VPIP based on HEMs VPIP definition)

Am I close? Tell me I'm close lol

I think you may be on to something there, Jchoop. Likely has something to do with getting a walk. Table folds around to SB, SB doesn't complete. As BB you already have more invested than SB, so you get credited with a "raise" but, since it wasn't a voluntary action on your part, you don't get credited with a vpip. Could be something weird like that.

Got to think it would be a coding error in the program. Something along the line of a player loving to 4 or 5 bet and getting a count of 2 PF raises per PF hand. Total oddity IMHO.........

Originally Posted by Big_Rudy

I think you may be on to something there, Jchoop. Likely has something to do with getting a walk. Table folds around to SB, SB doesn't complete. As BB you already have more invested than SB, so you get credited with a "raise" but, since it wasn't a voluntary action on your part, you don't get credited with a vpip. Could be something weird like that.

A big blind is a forced bet. A bet is not a raise therefore that couldn't be it.

Originally Posted by jchoop

The best I can come up with is where you post blinds instead of waiting and raise, where te players in the blinds have already left the table (but still appear to still be there, software just instafolds them when action gets there).

This might happen in RUSH, or ZOOM, where speed is the factor and fast folding is the tool.

Originally Posted by dj11

Got to think it would be a coding error in the program. Something along the line of a player loving to 4 bet and getting a count of 2 PF raises per PF hand. Total oddity IMHO.........

^^Agree. Some type of coding abnormality is pretty-much the only way I can see this happening. DMo has decided to play with us and let us try to divine on our own what the error could possibly be though..... Hopefully he'll eventually enlighten us.

Originally Posted by BlueNowhere

A big blind is a forced bet. A bet is not a raise therefore that couldn't be it.

Not disputing that. Just hypothesizing on if some/one of the trackers doesn't handle the situation correctly.

Originally Posted by jchoop

I'm really straining trying to think of the technicality you're inevitably going to refer to which makes it arguably possible. It's gunna keep me awake now. Dammit lol

The best I can come up with is where you post blinds instead of waiting and raise, where te players in the blinds have already left the table (but still appear to still be there, software just instafolds them when action gets there).
This obviously still should increase both VPIP and PFR, but I'm thinking there may be some kind of coding error that treats this scenario as a walk?? (which I believe you said in your VPIP thread would make hand not count towards VPIP based on HEMs VPIP definition)

Am I close? Tell me I'm close lol

I was thinking along those lines too. If you get a walk maybe the program sees it as a PFR since you "bet" more than the SB?

Impossible. The hands you PFR are a subset of the hands that you VPIP.

-

Originally Posted by rssurfer54

Impossible. The hands you PFR are a subset of the hands that you VPIP.

Agree. But you have to understand..... DMo is a 35yr. old guy, still lives in his parents' basement, and spends his free time re-compiling the latest version of Halo so that it can run concurrently on his vintage Atari 2600, Vic 20, and Commodore 64. I'm sure he's found a glitch/error/abnormality in the programming of one or more of the trackers, and is just waiting to enlighten us all with his discovery.

If you raise pre and then get reraised and reraise back, does it count as two pfrs? I'm sure this is going to be some coding error and I have never seen it.

Originally Posted by WVHillbilly

So have you ever seen it in game?

Yes I've seen this in-game, which is why I started the debate. And from what I'm being told it's being done across more than one tracker now.

Glad to see I wasn't being a totally unreasonable idiot in this argument I started, LOL. My feelings were pretty much the same as all of you, but now I'm torn between what should be the correct *technical* definition of a stat and the widely accepted understanding of that stat. Even if it were technically incorrect, once it becomes "sacred" in the sense of a commonly held statistic, for one stat provider to just up and change it for sake of correctness can do more harm than good IMO.

Okay, here's a teaser, if you want to chew on this and figure it out before reading further, stop reading after the hint below and see if you can figure a situation where it makes sense. Some of you sharper ones may get it with this little nudge.

Hint: It has nothing to do with a walking scenario like the VPIP thing (or actually it is somewhat related, but the walk does not play into the PFR scenario). It has to do with "opportunity."


-----

Okay, tl;dr and all that, but here's the background.

If you weren't aware, the HM devs often releases internal (consider them "beta") updates for users to help test before they're rolled out to the auto-update server for HM2 to pick up. If you never visit their support forum to download these directly you wouldn't have them. There have been several of these internal updates released recently due to, among other things, stat fixes and enhancements which required a database update. Some of us were having issues with the db update freezing, so a couple days ago HM2 released another update (7126) to fix that. It also included a change in PFR calculation, which I ran into immediately after the update.

After installing the update, I fired up my usual 6 tables of 6-max DONs on Lock and after awhile noticed a player with a 18/20 VPIP/PFR. A bit later I noticed my own stats on a couple tables had me at like 17/18 and 18/20. My first reaction was, this is a bug in the new update as I had never seen this before and it flew in the face of my understanding of PFR. Over the years I've used PT2, PT3, HM1, HM2, and PT4 and before those I used the Indicator series of tools, and have *never* seen PFR > VPIP.

So I posted on the HM2 support forum in a thread started by someone else reporting other incorrect stats after the update (some stats at like 200% LOL). It turned out to be a thread hijack unrelated to the OP but I had assumed they were related stat bugs in the new update. Come to find out, the PFR issue was due to an intentional change in how PFR is calculated to make it more "accurate."

As you can imagine, being the mouthy and opinionated SOB I am, I let fly with my concerns. You can read it all from the post linked to above, but my main issue is, right or wrong, I thought most everyone's understanding of PFR would coincide with mine, i.e. PFR is a subset of VPIP and can never exceed it. IMO, by someone considered an "authoritative" source of stats to just suddenly decide to change it, much confusion and inconsistency would ensue.

But not only was I given a scenario that explains why they think it's more correct this way, I'm also being told that PT4 is also making this change and that this same argument happened on their forum. I haven't been over there yet to confirm, and I haven't run PT4 in awhile so apparently hadn't got that update yet.

You can read HM's justification there in that thread, but basically the argument is that if you're facing a preflop all-in from a larger stack, you do not have the opportunity to PFR (you can only call or fold, not raise), and without the opportunity it should not be counted in the equation. This is where it's similar to the VPIP issue in that other thread I created. Thus, your PFR opportunities could be smaller than your VPIP opportunities which could make your PFR exceed VPIP.

In one example they gave, if you played 3 hands of 32 and PFR'ed them all, your VPIP = 3/32, but if you only had the opportunity to PFR in 30 hands (because twice you faced aipf's from a bigger stack) then PFR = 3/30. Thus a VPIP/PFR of 9/10.

Once they explained that and then told me that PT4 was moving in this same direction, I became more at ease with it. And again, as we said in the VPIP discussion, this is really only visible over a small sample size, like maybe over a session or two. With a substantial sample size you should never notice it because over all PFR will trail VPIP (unless maybe all you play is super turbos).

But I still have some heartburn about pulling the rug out from under a "sacred" stat like that, just as I did with their take on VPIP that was counter to PT3 at the time. BTW I'm told that PT4 also changed their VPIP stat accordingly, so maybe it's a good thing overall. As long as everyone is on the same page.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Big_Rudy

Agree. But you have to understand..... DMo is a 35yr. old guy, still lives in his parents' basement, and spends his free time re-compiling the latest version of Halo so that it can run concurrently on his vintage Atari 2600, Vic 20, and Commodore 64. I'm sure he's found a glitch/error/abnormality in the programming of one or more of the trackers, and is just waiting to enlighten us all with his discovery.

LOL. I wish I was still 35, and I sometimes I wish I still lived at home with parents. The wife and I are doing all we can to keep the kids & grandkids from moving back in with us.

I guess it makes sense and it's also pretty nice to know that as a cash gamer I'll probably never see it.

Originally Posted by dmorris68

LOL. I wish I was still 35, and I sometimes I wish I still lived at home with parents. The wife and I are doing all we can to keep the kids & grandkids from moving back in with us.

Ok, ok......so I missed the age thing a bit, but from your above post explaining the situation, and many other, previous posts of yours; it seems I nailed the rest of it pretty-much spot on .

As for the new interpretation of this stat.... It seems logical, although as you've noticed it can lead to the somewhat illogical seeming situation where PFR exceeds VPIP. As you noted yourself, though, this is only likely to occur over very small sample sizes, and I'd pretty-much expect its impact to be negligble/ non-existant in the real world.

So....mildly interesting to someone who's into that sort of thing, but ultimately I don't see it making any real difference in gameplay/stat interpretation since the opportunities for this sort of thing to happen will be far out-weighed by the more standard opportunity to vpip/pfr. Only way I can see it being a common occurrance is if all you play are all-in or fold tournaments in which case I could see it resulting in some really strange looking stats.

even if possible, dont think it would stay above vpip over any sort of adequate sample size

Originally Posted by TeUnit

even if possible, dont think it would stay above vpip over any sort of adequate sample size

Correct but that's not the point. The point is that the way a fundamental stat is calculated has been changed.

PFR cannot be higher than VPIP because every single Pre-Flop-Raise would increase your Voluntarily-Put-In-Pot whereas not every Voluntary-Put-In-Pot would increase your PFR. PFR is a subset of VPIP.

this is an outrage!

I only read the op , but my initial thought would be a player that only raised from the blinds and played no other hands . I'll read the full thread now.

Real explanation , love it .



Lol Donkaments..

Originally Posted by dmorris68

Thoughts?

My head assploded, thus no more thoughts........

Ok, never read the thread yet, just skimmed, but I have to say I did see this during my last session a week or so ago.

At about about 20-30 hands or so, a player two to my left had something like 18/20. I meant to take a screenie but it changed before I could. This was the only time I ever seen that so it stood out to me. Should have taken a screenie... Using PT3, whatever the latest version is.

Originally Posted by TheKAAHK

Using PT3, whatever the latest version is.

Good to know. So apparently it's not only PT4 they're changing this in. I figured more of you would have run across it by now then, but those like WVH who only play cash would likely never see it anyway.

I think just about every HM support rep has chimed in on this in that thread. Here's the latest response from Pat:

Originally Posted by Patvs

All stat formula's constantly change over time, even VPIP and PFR.

VPIP was already changed, if it's folded to you in the big blind and you win the hand, that hand counts as a "hand played", but it doesn't count towards your VPIP. PokerTracker recently also had their VPIP use the same tweaked formula so it matches ours. (This was the VPIP change I posted about last year)

We basically -in turn- now use their updated PFR formula. (my initial response was... it made no sense)
So the good news is both parties strive for a (coordinated) universal formatting of stats. Even when the stats definition is different than what everybody grew up on... reading Super System, and The Theory of Poker.


Anothe example of a change:
4 bet range in HM2 is different than HM1.
HM1 uses: PFR * 4bet
HM2 uses: RFI * 4bet.

So apparently this PFR change actually originated with PT rather than HM.

This may seem redundent as it has already been stated... but it is technically impossible... you can only have as high as a 100% match, ie: 20/20... PFR can never be more than VPIP... So this has to be a software malfunction... OR the HUD not updating/ on a lag... but if this was a constant that you saw I would contact support... What program are you using again? PT3 (I Hate) or HEM2 (Is What I Use And Love...)

I'm sure it was just a software fluke... but if you do see this again then try and get a screenshot and shoot it on here and to tech support... This is the strangest thing I have ever heard of in regards to HUD's.

My two cents,
Moe.

Originally Posted by moemtg

This may seem redundent as it has already been stated... but it is technically impossible... you can only have as high as a 100% match, ie: 20/20... PFR can never be more than VPIP... So this has to be a software malfunction... OR the HUD not updating/ on a lag... but if this was a constant that you saw I would contact support... What program are you using again? PT3 (I Hate) or HEM2 (Is What I Use And Love...)

I'm sure it was just a software fluke... but if you do see this again then try and get a screenshot and shoot it on here and to tech support... This is the strangest thing I have ever heard of in regards to HUD's.

My two cents,
Moe.

Read the thread.

Never seen it using pt3 only play small amounts of turbo sngs have seen 14/14 or even amounts