Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="aliengenius, post: 755880, member: 11924"] [URL="http://www.andymcnish.btinternet.co.uk/newauto.htm"]Here[/URL] is the link for those interested. Not sure why he would bother with those post flop agg. stats that low either. : [B]Explanation of the New Poker Tracker No Limit Full Ring Autorates[/B] New Autorate Rules can be downloaded [URL="http://www.andymcnish.btinternet.co.uk/NL50final.TXT"]here[/URL] (you should save them as a text file to import) [B][COLOR=black]The existing system[/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black]My former system of autorates (described in the [URL="http://www.bet-the-pot.com/poker-tracker-part-2a-page44.html"]Bet the Pot PT Guide series 2a[/URL]) split the players into general categories based on:[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Pre-Flop Tightness (Tight (Vp$iP <25%, Slightly Loose 25%-40%) or Loose 40%+);[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Pre-Flop Aggression (Passive or Aggressive)(i.e. propensity to raise with 7% PFR or more being aggressive); and[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Post Flop Aggression (again Passive or Aggressive, with a Total Post-Flop Aggression (PFA) of more than 1.2 being aggressive).[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]That was 12 categories. We have a maximum of 14 available and so there were also 2 priority categories used. [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]One to define Calling Stations (Loose or Slightly Loose Post-Flop Passives with a Went to Showdown when Saw Flop% of more than 35%); and [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]The last to flag up ABC or ‘Vanilla’ players (Vp$iP 25-35%, PFR 4-9 PFA 1-2).[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]These were developed for my own use at about the same time as GT+ came out. [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]GT+ enables the overlaying of real time statistical information on opponents at your table (see screengrab below). [/COLOR] [IMG]http://www.andymcnish.btinternet.co.uk/gt1.jpg[/IMG] [COLOR=black]After using it (and the similar program PlayerView which has now gone commercial and costs $50)) for a while I had assumed that there wasn’t much need to revisit autorates as the information given by them as to Vp$iP,PFR,PFA and WtSD was in front of you anyway. Sure it might save a little time when multi-tabling but there were more important areas of PT that my guide series hasn’t visited at all…[/COLOR] for reference this is an older screengrab and the stats I now have up on screen are Vp$iP, PFR, PFA, WtSD%, W$SD%, and hands played. I also have the table average Vp$iP and PFR yp. [B]Another Look[/B] [COLOR=black]Two matters in the same week persuaded me that it was well worth having another look at autorates. [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]First a poster on BTP (whilst claiming wrongly I think that Tight Tight Passive was a good strategy) pointed out that Post Flop Aggression isn’t a great indicator of fish etc. as the PT Aggression numbers entirely ignore folding or checking. They are just Bets+Raises/Calls.[/COLOR] Exploring the Post Flop Aggression stats in more details I was disturbed to notice a problem with the way in which these work out. This screengrab demonstrates the issue: [IMG]http://www.andymcnish.btinternet.co.uk/PFA8.jpg[/IMG] [COLOR=black]This guy has seen 139 flops. He has check/folded 105 times. He has bet 24 times and raised 9 times. But he has only called once. He check/folds on the turn and river 83% and 87% of the time respectively. That is very passive in my book. And yet he is coming out with a PFA of 8 – not just post-flop aggressive but absolutely hyper-aggressive (anything over 1.2 was aggressive in the old system). But if you saw his PFA on screen and checked to induce a bluff or bet from him, you would most likely be disappointed. [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]The significant stat that shows his passivity is WtSD% when saw flop - this is 7.9% (11 times out of 139 flops). The other crucial stat that defines his player-type is the W$SD% (8 times out of 11).This is a guy who doesn’t like going to showdown at all but when he does he has the goods. He is weak-tight not hyper-aggressive.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Generally running bluffs against a hyper-aggressive player is not a good thing to do. But running them against weak-tight players is exactly the right move – you want to bet into them as they will make laydowns.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Now it’s true that, on average, those rated passive post-flop are probably more likely to check/fold than those rated aggressive, but it’s crucial that you understand that there is not necessarily a direct correlation and that you should pay more attention to WtSD% before deciding whether to check, bluff or how much to bet for value.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Similarly if you hit a flop and want a player to bet into you it helps if that player is shown as aggressive but a high aggression rating can’t be regarded as a guarantee that he will do this. You would need to pull up his actual stats to see how often he bets compared to checks to get a better read. Don’t forget that you can do this in about 10 seconds in the main PT DB if you really need to (or you could configure PV to show this info I think – although PV costs $50 and seems to lack the show autorate icons function so I’m assuming that you are using GT+ for the purposes of this article).[/COLOR] Oh and on the topic of useful stats you can’t see on GT+ that you might need to use PV or PT itself to check, you can spot slowplayers by noticing a high W$SD and low folded on river% combined with low aggression. The 'chasers' (that love to call down when on draws) will tend to be loose or slightly loose and have a high folded on river% (although to some extent you may be able to see this from GT+ if a player has a high Vp$iP, low aggression and a low WtSD%.) [COLOR=black]The other issues that I had with the old rating system was that there wasn’t enough room for classifying players as anything other than passive or aggressive post-flop (and the boundary-line is therefore a bit arbitrary) and that there was room for only 2 extra priority categories – and I had ideas for several more – in particular I had noticed that players with very high Vp$iP were huge losers and wantedto identify them quickly for table selection purposes.[/COLOR] In essence I felt that the existing ratings has attacked the problem from a theoretical angle but that we could use priority categories to make them much more useful in practice.. [B][COLOR=black]The New System[/COLOR][/B] So have bitten the bullet and decided to drop pre-flop raise% as an indicator. This is because a) it doesn’t tell us much about an opponent's likely win/loss rate b) if you need to try to figure out likely holdings for a pre-flop raiser or limper you will look at the actual PFR% - remembering which icon means above or below 7% doesn't do a lot of good - you still need to glance at the stats to see if it's 0% or 6 (or 7% or 25%) c) it frees up more icons - allowing me to split post-flop aggression into passive/neutral and aggressive and still reducing the overall number - making those left simpler to remember (while still being good guides to expected win/loss rates) and lets me add some really useful priority categories. If you want to know how often you should be raising per-flop by the way see this link to Aperfect10’s [URL="http://bet-the-pot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2894"]polynomial graphs[/URL] for TA’s and sLA’s. The ideal figure seems to be around ¼ of the hands you play. Personally I will tend to use my opponents PFR’s to put them on likely starting hands (i.e. if their PFR% is 9% and they limp then they probably don’t have a great hand and if I have position on them and no tighter players have limped in I may well raise even with marginal holdings from LP). [B]Basic Categories[/B] So the basic categories are now decided by looking at the two statistics Vp$iP and Flop Aggression (FA). The 9 basic categories are now as follows: Loose Passive (fish). [I]Icon Fish.[/I] Slightly Loose Passive (mini-fish). [I]Icon Mouse[/I] Tight Passive (Rock). [I]Icon Rock[/I] Loose Neutral/Unknown. [I]Icon Elephant[/I] Slightly Loose Neutral/Unknown (Vanilla). [I]Icon – Question Mark - ?[/I] Tight Neutral/Unknown. [I]Icon Green Frown.[/I] Loose Aggressive. [I]Icon Taz[/I] Slightly Loose Aggressive. [I]Icon Dice.[/I] Tight Aggressive. [I]Icon Eagle[/I] I have balanced the categories from the data in APerfect10’s huge $50 NL DB (120,000 hands). As he plays 8-tables for 60 hours/week these are pretty up to date and what is more he has given invaluable guidance in what is likely to prove useful in practice. This means that there are roughly equal nos. of players categorised as Tight, Slightly Loose and Loose and again a more or less equal balance between Passive/Neutral/Aggressive. It also mean that no one category represents more than 15% or less than 5% of all rated players) As my old categories were based on $25 NL you would expect me to have to tighten the ratings up a bit for the higher level and I have. They are for fullish Ring tables (7-10 players) - I don't rate hands with less than 7 players dealt in. The new guidelines are: Tight <22% Vp$iP Slightly Loose 22-35 Loose >35% For Passive/Aggressive/Neutral Passive <1.3 FA Neutral/Unknown 1.2-1.8 (Or FA=0) Aggressive >1.8 [COLOR=black]As FA can take some time to settle down, until we get some sort of aggression rating the player is classed as ‘neutral/unknown’ by default. We also check turn and river and if the rating is 0 the player is also placed into the unknown category. This also means that there are more neutral player rated at 20 hands than the other categories, but I don’t see this as an issue (other than to note that the true ‘fall-off’ rate of neutrals from min. 20 to min. 100 hands rated will be better than it looks in the tables). Overall post-flop aggression (PFA) is heavily dependent on flop play. I did originally try testing the aggression on each street but for a lot of players there wasn’t enough of a sample size to give reliable numbers. There is no particular reason that overall PFA couldn’t have been used instead – it’s just that I balanced the play on the basis of flop play alone. I thought that data on the later streets would be too unreliable in the absence of a huge number of hands logged and that overall post-flop aggression will be visible for all players on screen anyway. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us