doesn't sound right
It doesn't sound right to me that out of >101K players only 8 could be tagged as winners with 95% confidence. I am probably misunderstanding what you mean by 95% confidence, or maybe the number of players you are looking at. Still it seems awfully low.
Anyhow, keep us posted on what you discover.
Good luck!
What standard error and bb/100 are you calculating for this guy?Originally Posted by PCP Poker
@ Orthoguy
Confidence Level tells you how sure you can be whether or not you are a winner. A 95% confidence level means that you can be 95% sure that you will be a winner long-term. It does not however mean that you will maintain your same winrate. It is calculated by the formula c= Φ(un1/2/σ), where c is confidence level, Φ() is the standard cumulative normal distribution function, u is the winrate (bb/100 hands), n is number of hands (divided by 100 to normalize it), and σ is standard deviation (in bb/100). Most players in small stakes NL have an exceedingly high standard deviation, and this is even more pronounced in shorthanded games. This fact, combined with the difficulty of overcoming the rake at these levels, adds up to very few true winners.
@TierTier
That player is a freak of nature, or he is on a very long heater. His winrate is over 25 bb/100, and his sd is under 70. This winrate is obviously not sustainable, but it's obvious he's doing something right.
No LAGs
I am wondering if part of the reason for not having a 95% confidence level on any non-TAG player has to with with higher variance associated with the style of play itself. I would assume it would take way more hands to reach a 95% CI for someone who is playing and splashing around in lots of pots. Just a guess.
Yea, that's exactly right. In my db there are lots of LAGs that have very high winrates, but their SD is also very high as well. There are also many nits with a very low SD, but their winrate is also low. At least at these small stakes, it seems that TAGs are the only ones able to achieve a balance between winrate and variance. I'm sure at higher levels, as postflop skill increases and the effect of rake decreases, that there are many more winning LAGs or other styles.
It would actually be more likely that he is NOT doing something right and has simply put himself into high volatility, probably -E(x) situations, and ended up with the best of it.
Same reason why many of the biggest stacks come the middle of the tournament are not the best players. Enough of them pursued a high volatility strategy and we simply expect a few to get paid off.
I've actually examined this guy a lot since then. He is indeed a very tricky player. Might be a pro slumming low stakes making some strategy videos or something of that sorts. Or maybe he's just a donkish son of a bitch that happens to mimic the style of a pro-type player. Either way, he's been running almost on par with his all-in e.v., so I don't think luck is much of a factor either way. And he's now up past 13 k hands with still around 23 bb/100. SD is down to 61 as well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote