I auto rated 15,000+ players. I rate after 10 hands.

I don't know how to get the percentages in a simple manner. If you could help I will be glad to post my breakdown.

First I wouldn't rate after only 10 - that really is pushing it - to be honest even 20 is only strongly indicative of Vp$iP - probably best to wait unitl 30+ to rate

Second iI did my % with a calculator! - I filtered DB on prefs page for all players with 20 hands logged (say 10,000). Then just filtered by each of the icon types (still with 20 hands minimum) in turn and saw what % they represented - so if I had 1200 Rocks (TP) that is 12%...

Looking at these numbers I notice that the dropout rate of the Loser is not nearly as bad as the XL and CS

That table is great AP10m thanx - the question I have about losers is - is it the same people ?

Most players stick to one style - a rock at 20 is very likely to be a rock at 200. But Losers jsut have two stats - one of which WtSD%>=25% probably applies to a third of players.. so are you actually tracking players dropping out or are you just replacing them with players who are unlucky enough at whatever number of hands to have a w$SD of 1-40%? You would expect a huge drop-off rate for the % of the really bad players who are losing a lot - like CS and XL - they drop to about 1/5th of their original % by 200 hands - the very fact that losers are apparently losing cash as badly as those two types but have a drop off rate of only 50% makes me suspicious...

I have posted a link to this thread on the main PT forum in case anyone over there has good input

I downloaded the modified rules and PT is still not autorating.

HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

cat923

excession,

That is correct. My goal was not to pinpoint those players who are losing money. Like you said, that is easily enough determined by looking at their BB/100 ratings. In the short term, BB/100 numbers of other playeres are of no importance to me as anyone could be on a streak in either direction; however, 9 times out of 10 you can look at their other numbers and determine whether or not they should be winning or should be losing.

My intentions for tthis category was not to pinpoint those users who are currently losing (although it does that as well), my goal was to find players who take weak hands to showdown and thus will end up large losers in the long term. Against these players you can take anything as weak as TPTK to showdown and win the majority of the times whereas typically you would not want to showdown TPTK against a weak tight or many other smart players.

A lot of times I'll be at a table where a 'Loser' has been making money for whatever reason:
- They got lucky and won a big pot
- They are good at pushing players off of pots

With my knowledge of their WTSD/W$SD ratio, I immediately know that this is a perfect money opportunity and sooner or later you'll make them go 'bust' and 90% of the time they do. This category gives you the advantage of knowing this will happen before it does and hopefully provides you the opportunity to make some $$ before they do

Like I mentioned earlier, the thoughts are in my head, sometimes I have trouble conveying everything, my apologies. Perhaps we should rename the category to something other than 'Loser'. I've never really like the name; however, when I see them thats the first thing that pops into my head everytime. I'll leave that job up to you as I am sure that you are much more creative than I.

'Showdown Muppet' ?

OK - spent today looking at these modified ratings - two issues:

first i am shifting the icons around a bit (the 60+ Vp$iP really needs to be a cash bag not a bomb, the bomb should be for ultra-aggressives and the warning sign for weak-tight...


secondly there is a problem with the aggressiveness calcs in that if no calls have been made on the turn or river by a player the calculation seesm to produce artifically high results (even if no bets or raises have been made either - as 0/0=infinity I assume there is some hard cap put on when aggregating - but anyway this messes up the aggression nos. a lot for those with no (or only a little) turn or river play logged.


For the general aggressives (LA,sLA and TA) this may not matter so much (I'm checking how much) , but for UA's it is a definitely a big problem - i am trying various fixes and will report back..


edit - it did affect all agressive ratings not just UA- have now fixed them -please see below for link to new test autorates



http://www.andymcnish.btinternet.co.uk/NL50mod2.TXT

I have gone back to your original NL autorate rules. I know what the icons mean. In having used the NL50 rules and several versions of them I am not able to remember what I am doing during the sessions.

Whenever you are ready to group and classify the new rules I will be glad to try them again.

cat923

I've played with the new rules for a few thousand hands now. I prefer the old ones as it stands right now.

The biggest advantage I see would be in scouting tables (ie, load a ton of tables, get GT+ working on each, and pick the one with the most fish, xtra-loose, etc). I haven't found this particularly advantageous in my personal play however. Table make-up changes so fast that I find this in-depth scouting a waste of valuable playing time. My table selection is more along the lines of leaving a table if I have poor position on a very good player or two.

The old rules did a better job of lumping a particular playing style. In my experience, a player that is passive pre-flop and aggressive post-flop is very different from a player who is Aggressive pre-flop and agressive post-flop. The way I play back at these two players is drastically different. When we removed the pre-flop criteria, these two players can easily end up in the same category.

That said, I did make some tweaks to the old rules. Primarily, I changed the post-flop aggression cuttoff so that it is different for pre-flop passives or aggressisve (eg: a pre-flop passive is defined as post-flop aggressive at maybe 1.2, while a pre-flop aggressive isn't post-flop aggressive until maybe 2.0). Also, I tweaked the 'vanilla' category to scoop more of the in-between players ... these are the hardest to play back at since they tend to be more 'wishy-washy' in their actions.

There's my 2 cents worth. I'm going to continue with the new rules for a short while longer to see if my opinion of it changes though.