PT auto rating for Omaha

[Stl10202]

Hey guys, missed the forum. I stopped playing for awhile bc I kept getting sucked out so now I am back. I didn't post my February bankroll update bc I didn't play that much due to a virus taking over my computer. Anyways, I noticed the beta Omaha PT and was wondering if anyone came up with a set of rules for auto-rating palyers. I know with more cards it is easier to limp in so I figured a fish would see about 50%+ of the flops but that is all I got. Any help is appreciated.

[Felonius_Monk]

I haven't got round to installing PTO yet because until this weekend I was only playing Crypto, Prima and Stars for PLO which didn't seem to be covered by the beta version. However, I am back at empire now so I might get chance to sort it next week (maybe!).

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure if you want autorates for PLO or omaha hi/lo but here goes...

Intuitively, preflop limping won't tell you a lot about a player because in omaha most of the hands are "playable" in that none is a real massive underdog or leak. I would be interested a little more in PFR% - players who raise 20% or more preflop will be playing some mediocre hands for a raise, low wraps, single big pairs etc, whereas players at 5% or whatever will have AA in their hand more often than not when they raise, so it's probably a useful tell.

On the other hand, players who are loose preflop are liable to play a lot of garbage and may be poor players; I don't know that many good omaha players with a VPIP over 50% BUT there will be significantly more winning or break-even PLO players at this level than for holdem. Take this stat with a pinch of salt. By my reckoning it might just be possible to be a winning player seeing every flop in a poor, loose PLO game, which of course would be close to impossible in a holdem setting.

Went-to-showdown % when saw flop will be an important figure, but in omaha you will need a lot of hands to get a decent handle on this. Again, without some sample data good cut-off points for autorating are not clearly obvious, but will probably be a bit higher than in holdem due to the increased "drawiness" of omaha; players with low post-flop aggression and high WTSD% are likely to be drawing to a lot of non-nut draws, so when they bet you can be more suspicious of a big hand, and when they call you can perhaps deduce more accurately what the scare cards might be. I would plump for a Post-flop aggression rating similar to holdem and a WTSD% when saw flop of perhaps 5-10% higher than your usual holdem figure (though again that might not be so accurate because a lot of the time real calling stations will play a poor draw TO the river and then fold, but I think they will showdown a lot of the time).

For me, the usefulness of autorating at omaha needs some thinking about. The typical "patterns" of post-flop play are different to holdem so the typical indications of fishiness or good play at NL will be different in PLO, perhaps a whole different set of stats is needed! However, I think you can get a good feel for a player using the usual WTSD%, post-flop aggression, pre-flop raise and VPIP stats.... You (and I!) might need to collect a good bank of data before doing this.

Have you considered leaving the computer on and set up at 4 tables at party/empire, auto-impoting hands whilst you're not there to gather some data on players?

Anyone else got more experience than me with PTO, and willing to share your preliminary findings?

Monk
xxxxx

[GooperMC]

[Felonius_Monk]

[starstealer]

[Stl10202]

[starstealer]

Here's some of the stats I pulled out of my database for limit omaha hi/lo and pot limit omaha Hi/lo. There are a few gems in there - so take it for what its worth:

Limit Omaha Hi/Lo
Player1; 2388 hands; 0.838 PFR%; 0.350 BlindSteal%; 38.903 VP$IP%; 92.50 Net Win($); 3.874 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player2; 553 hands; 3.255 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 40.325 VP$IP%; 99.00 Net Win($); 17.902 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player3; 511 hands; 3.718 PFR%; 4.167 BlindSteal%; 22.309 VP$IP%; 59.75 Net Win($); 11.693 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player4; 341 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 47.507 VP$IP%; 41.00 Net Win($); 12.023 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player5; 327 hands; 1.223 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 29.664 VP$IP%; 71.00 Net Win($); 21.713 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player6; 293 hands; 2.048 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 45.392 VP$IP%; 13.20 Net Win($); 4.505 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player7; 283 hands; 0.353 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 39.576 VP$IP%; 83.00 Net Win($); 29.329 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player8; 282 hands; 5.674 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 36.170 VP$IP%; 54.95 Net Win($); 19.486 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player9; 272 hands; 6.985 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 44.118 VP$IP%; 108.75 Net Win($); 39.982 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player10; 269 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 26.766 VP$IP%; 38.75 Net Win($); 14.405 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player11; 264 hands; 2.273 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 49.242 VP$IP%; 60.25 Net Win($); 22.822 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player12; 241 hands; 2.075 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 40.249 VP$IP%; 138.00 Net Win($); 57.261 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player13; 240 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 12.500 VP$IP%; 104.25 Net Win($); 43.438 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player14; 232 hands; 0.431 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 66.379 VP$IP%; -20.75 Net Win($); -8.944 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player15; 223 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 27.803 VP$IP%; 3.00 Net Win($); 1.345 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player16; 216 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 50.000 VP$IP%; 33.25 Net Win($); 15.394 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player17; 207 hands; 2.899 PFR%; 2.041 BlindSteal%; 20.773 VP$IP%; 27.50 Net Win($); 13.285 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player18; 206 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 45.631 VP$IP%; 154.00 Net Win($); 74.757 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player19; 203 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 43.842 VP$IP%; -47.50 Net Win($); -23.399 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player20; 202 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 13.366 VP$IP%; 0.50 Net Win($); 0.248 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player21; 201 hands; 6.965 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 54.726 VP$IP%; 81.65 Net Win($); 40.622 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player22; 200 hands; 5.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 52.500 VP$IP%; 92.25 Net Win($); 46.125 Avg Win/100 ($/100)

Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo
Player1; 1372 hands; 1.239 PFR%; 0.570 BlindSteal%; 42.128 VP$IP%; -102.65 Net Win($); -7.482 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player2; 783 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 28.736 VP$IP%; 55.05 Net Win($); 7.031 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player3; 660 hands; 1.364 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 39.242 VP$IP%; 82.24 Net Win($); 12.461 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player4; 443 hands; 1.354 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 39.052 VP$IP%; -12.05 Net Win($); -2.720 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player5; 400 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 25.750 VP$IP%; 29.65 Net Win($); 7.413 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player6; 327 hands; 0.612 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 59.327 VP$IP%; 58.60 Net Win($); 17.920 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player7; 325 hands; 1.231 PFR%; 1.333 BlindSteal%; 33.846 VP$IP%; 6.80 Net Win($); 2.092 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player8; 285 hands; 0.702 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 23.509 VP$IP%; -2.35 Net Win($); -0.825 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player9; 277 hands; 0.000 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 14.801 VP$IP%; 11.30 Net Win($); 4.079 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player10; 265 hands; 3.396 PFR%; 1.515 BlindSteal%; 84.906 VP$IP%; -10.90 Net Win($); -4.113 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player11; 261 hands; 0.383 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 29.502 VP$IP%; 86.25 Net Win($); 33.046 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player12; 223 hands; 3.587 PFR%; 1.887 BlindSteal%; 58.744 VP$IP%; -1.45 Net Win($); -0.650 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player13; 197 hands; 2.538 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 38.071 VP$IP%; 60.15 Net Win($); 30.533 Avg Win/100 ($/100)
Player14; 180 hands; 1.667 PFR%; 0.000 BlindSteal%; 36.111 VP$IP%; 5.55 Net Win($); 3.083 Avg Win/100 ($/100)

[starstealer]

I had intended to post some analysis with those numbers above - I just didn't get the chance last night.

First of all, the thing to notice about a player is preflop raises. I've got several hundred hands with these players and a good many of them essentially NEVER raise preflop. Those who do, are raise less than 3% of the time for the most part. For those players - you should identify as quickly as possible what those raise hands are. If it is AA23ds - note it; if it is utter garbage and a positional raise - note it. If you are on the table with the player later - you are going to want to know what he raised with.

There are two players (8 and 9 from the limit section) who raise more than the rest and still have a reasonable number of hands. These players are the high end of the spectrum with 5-6% PFR%. Again, you should know what they raise with - but now you need to identify a range.

Player 1 in both limit and pot limit is the same player (and is not me...). I find his play is for the most part solid - but he has some definite leaks, although they don't show well with these numbers in particular. I will say that he is marginally looser than I am at limit and that the PL stats are kind of skewed because he had some terrible sessions when I played with him.

Every once in a while, you will find a player like #14 in the limit section or #10 in the pot limit section, whose %VP$IP is insanely high. These are your great calling stations (and in some cases your maniacs). You should get to know them by name and actively seek them out for your regular profit.

Also, bear in mind that in split pot games, over the short term (and <1000 hands is definitely short term), you may see them with a good or even great win rate. Someone who is playing 80% of the hands and are showing a great win rate could also spell trouble for you (maybe they are on a great run, but they might also be good at post-flop play.

BlindSteal% is a tricky number to calculate. First of all, in Omaha Hi/Lo it is rare for a blind steal to happen (in terms of my definition for these data points). In my report, a blind steal is a raise from the first player in the pot who is also either in the cutoff or on the button. So for those who have 0%, it would also be good to know how many opportunities they've had...

Player #2 in PL is an interesting one - obviously since I've played so many hands with him. Before I got my stats down about him, I had always placed him in the category of a passive fish. Whenever I see him play, he's on 4-5 tables, and apparently he's been making a profit at PL. I'll tell you right now that his $7/100 translates to 28BB/100 ($25 PL tables). This just goes to show you that although I thought originally that he was just another fish, that he's actually someone to contend with. Since I've found this out - I've learned to keep my distance. The funny thing is - if you look at just his VP$IP% and PFR% - you'd be easy to call him a passive tight player.

Just some thoughts about those numbers.

/d

[Felonius_Monk]

Very interesting stuff.

One point about your penultimate paragraph - you only have 783 hands logged from this player at PLO8. This will tell you nothing about his long term profitability so his 28BB/100 figure is quite liable to be merely short-term variance. Whether he's actually any good or not can't really be surmised from this data, IMO.

Interesting stuff though. What might be interesting would be if we can group some data together on players with certain stats, and their overall winrate (i.e. all players with vpip >30%, WTSD >40% etc).

I haven't got PTO yet but this is all interesting stuff. Keep em coming guys!

Monk
xxxxx

[starstealer]

Well, as I said, I don't have much data about the players for PL right now. Actually, the funny thing is I usually consider 500 hands a reasonable measure to know how an opponent plays and whether or not they are profitable at the game. In the case of the player that I singled out - I guess it isn't really an indication just because I've got 783 hands with him - so I might need to reexamine it. For limit though, 500 hands would at least give me a ballpark of where the player was at.

/d