BB/100 is in pokertracker BB/100 so the numbers have to be doubled.
Overall, I am on just shy of 10 PTBB/100, or 20 real BB/100 for this period (though I need to import a ton of hands from a recent hot run which'd push that up; still, fairly immaterial). Any seats I lose from are in italics
UTG: 8 PTBB/100
2: 21 PTBB/100
3: -2 PTBB/100
4: 16 PTBB/100
5: 10 PTBB/100
6: 39 PTBB/100
CO: 28 PTBB/100
Button: 11PTBB/100
SB: -18 PTBB/100
BB: -9 PTBB/100
In both blinds I am (obviously) a net winner not including the money I put in for the blind (otherwise they'd be over -50 PTBB/100)
So, there seems very little correlation at present between winrate and position, though I'd like to have maybe 10k hands for each seat before things even vaguely start to level out. That said, there's no clear pattern suggesting my winrate in the early seats is negative, or indeed dramatically lower than the late seats.
Perhaps somewhat worryingly, my VPIP is right about 20 for all seats, slightly over in LP and a tiny bit under in EP, suggesting I don't take nearly enough interest in position. The only real adjustment I make is that I play a few more high only hands in LP, and a few more marginal A45-type holdings.
Monk
xxxxx
Statistics: Posted by Felonius_Monk — Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:28 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I think Smash is not adjusting his advice to the level of game that is being played. I think every good poker book I've read suggests that you should loosen up with your hand selection and calls if the table is looser than you. In fact, I think that Ray Zee suggests that you only need to be the tightest player at your table, not just a monolithic tight player.
Also note that Smash said nothing about check-calling -- his comments were just only the pot-repot situation. This is a tack that he uses often. In certain circumstances it makes him technically correct while giving advice that is not as complete as it could (and perhaps should) be.
I think the advice on FCP is often good textbook advice, but I don't think it always washes in actual games. If nothing else, advice like this leaves a LOT of money on the table.
FWIW, on the hand, I do advocate check-call in an effort to manage the size of the pot. If your low/wheel hits, you could probably get away with a check-raise on the turn. If it's a wheel, I would expect to scoop or 3/4 most of the time unless opponent is a proven winner. If you miss, you can see whether you get pot odds to call to see the river.
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:32 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Right, gonna put this one to bed now as far as my input goes
Statistics: Posted by Felonius_Monk — Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:23 pm
]]>
Anyhow, this has worked for me at 100 and 200 to the tune of 20-some BB/100, so I guess it can't be too disastrous.
Statistics: Posted by Felonius_Monk — Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:16 pm
]]>
I don't think it's as simple as just "fold". In this spot, the opponent was clearly a balloon and thus folding the hand would be a mistake. Like I said, I think you have to have some situational feeling, right?
Statistics: Posted by Felonius_Monk — Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:03 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>