PAHUD Accuracy

The Al Lad

I'm using PAHUD atm mainly for SnG's (10 Handed) and am wondering about it's accuracy, since Sng's only last about 70-80 hands, seen as you need at least 50 hands to get accurate reads from players can PAHUD be effective

AND

surely players VP$IP and PFR will be all over the place ???

Thanks in advance

luckylucky

The Al Lad wrote: »

I'm using PAHUD atm mainly for SnG's (10 Handed) and am wondering about it's accuracy, since Sng's only last about 70-80 hands, seen as you need at least 50 hands to get accurate reads from players can PAHUD be effective

AND

surely players VP$IP and PFR will be all over the place ???

Thanks in advance

Well obviously the more hands you have on somebody the more accurate your read can be, but if you have a guy who has a VPIP of 70+ after even only 20 hands it's highly likely that you have got yourself a fish. Similarly even after 10 hands if a guy is raising 8 or 9 out of 10 times it's highly likely you got yourself a maniac. Statistically wise even after such a smaller number of hands it becomes unlikely that a good player would be seen to be in this range.

On the other hand for somebody with a more normal range of vpip/pfr it will take that bit longer to get a more accurate fix, i.e. someone with a real vpip of say 25, might be showing up at say 15 to 35 after 50 hands or so, so you can only know for sure that they're neither extremely tight or extremely loose.

jayhawk

1. If you play the same game at the same place, most of the time, as most of us do, you will eventually run into the same pack of runners and one of the amazing things about Poker Tracker/Poker Ace (or any other HUD system) is that almost all players do not change their established tendencies, even after having tracked them for relatively few hands.

2. Because looseness and aggression at SNGs is so level-dependent, Poker Tracker makes no attempt to rate tournament players on any overall basis. There are no established criteria that fit every stage of the game. There are some new wrinkles afoot in Hold’em Manager that may interest some technical players in revisiting this problem; there will certainly be some new stats available that semi-pro SNG multi-tablers will be taking for a test drive and chatting about on 2+2.

3. Besides the early stage maniacs, who tend to identify themselves without any effort on your part (and who will either soon be gone or be sitting on a depressingly huge stack), the most valuable assessment is whether your man is a pushbot or not. These folks identify themselves as well -- tight early, blind-stealers mid-game, open push in late position late with 10BB or less.

4. Sharkscope is probably more useful here, if you’re playing few enough tables to handle the name-entering chores. All you really care about is whether your man is a long-term shark, fish, or a normal, like the rest of us.

5. If you’re playing in dangerous waters, like the low-rake $16’s at Stars, it’s advisable to maintain your own shark list of extreme multi-tabling pros. There are a couple of handfuls of super-sharks there that it just does not pay to compete with -- like spacegravy, loonatwok, The_Venetian and Assassinato. In contrast, I found that fish-finding (assuming I wasn’t one as well) was a waste of time -- they were already found before I got there.

6. One HUD factor that tends to correlate well with a player’s level of SNG skill is aggression -- whether it’s pre-flop, post-flop, or overall aggression (there are various theories on which is more indicative). Better players are more likely to come in with a raise, even with speculative hands, and even in earlier positions, than the less skilled, who tend to limp in search of a cheap flop. These gents are also more likely to keep betting, with less, on subsequent streets. And they don’t whine when they take a beat with the best of it.

The Al Lad

jayhawk wrote: »

1. If you play the same game at the same place, most of the time, as most of us do, you will eventually run into the same pack of runners and one of the amazing things about Poker Tracker/Poker Ace (or any other HUD system) is that almost all players do not change their established tendencies, even after having tracked them for relatively few hands.

2. Because looseness and aggression at SNGs is so level-dependent, Poker Tracker makes no attempt to rate tournament players on any overall basis. There are no established criteria that fit every stage of the game. There are some new wrinkles afoot in Hold’em Manager that may interest some technical players in revisiting this problem; there will certainly be some new stats available that semi-pro SNG multi-tablers will be taking for a test drive and chatting about on 2+2.

3. Besides the early stage maniacs, who tend to identify themselves without any effort on your part (and who will either soon be gone or be sitting on a depressingly huge stack), the most valuable assessment is whether your man is a pushbot or not. These folks identify themselves as well -- tight early, blind-stealers mid-game, open push in late position late with 10BB or less.

4. Sharkscope is probably more useful here, if you’re playing few enough tables to handle the name-entering chores. All you really care about is whether your man is a long-term shark, fish, or a normal, like the rest of us.

5. If you’re playing in dangerous waters, like the low-rake $16’s at Stars, it’s advisable to maintain your own shark list of extreme multi-tabling pros. There are a couple of handfuls of super-sharks there that it just does not pay to compete with -- like spacegravy, loonatwok, The_Venetian and Assassinato. In contrast, I found that fish-finding (assuming I wasn’t one as well) was a waste of time -- they were already found before I got there.

6. One HUD factor that tends to correlate well with a player’s level of SNG skill is aggression -- whether it’s pre-flop, post-flop, or overall aggression (there are various theories on which is more indicative). Better players are more likely to come in with a raise, even with speculative hands, and even in earlier positions, than the less skilled, who tend to limp in search of a cheap flop. These gents are also more likely to keep betting, with less, on subsequent streets. And they don’t whine when they take a beat with the best of it.

Great post, Cheers Jay

The Al Lad

jayhawk wrote: »

1. If you play the same game at the same place, most of the time, as most of us do, you will eventually run into the same pack of runners and one of the amazing things about Poker Tracker/Poker Ace (or any other HUD system) is that almost all players do not change their established tendencies, even after having tracked them for relatively few hands.

2. Because looseness and aggression at SNGs is so level-dependent, Poker Tracker makes no attempt to rate tournament players on any overall basis. There are no established criteria that fit every stage of the game. There are some new wrinkles afoot in Hold’em Manager that may interest some technical players in revisiting this problem; there will certainly be some new stats available that semi-pro SNG multi-tablers will be taking for a test drive and chatting about on 2+2.

3. Besides the early stage maniacs, who tend to identify themselves without any effort on your part (and who will either soon be gone or be sitting on a depressingly huge stack), the most valuable assessment is whether your man is a pushbot or not. These folks identify themselves as well -- tight early, blind-stealers mid-game, open push in late position late with 10BB or less.

4. Sharkscope is probably more useful here, if you’re playing few enough tables to handle the name-entering chores. All you really care about is whether your man is a long-term shark, fish, or a normal, like the rest of us.

5. If you’re playing in dangerous waters, like the low-rake $16’s at Stars, it’s advisable to maintain your own shark list of extreme multi-tabling pros. There are a couple of handfuls of super-sharks there that it just does not pay to compete with -- like spacegravy, loonatwok, The_Venetian and Assassinato. In contrast, I found that fish-finding (assuming I wasn’t one as well) was a waste of time -- they were already found before I got there.

6. One HUD factor that tends to correlate well with a player’s level of SNG skill is aggression -- whether it’s pre-flop, post-flop, or overall aggression (there are various theories on which is more indicative). Better players are more likely to come in with a raise, even with speculative hands, and even in earlier positions, than the less skilled, who tend to limp in search of a cheap flop. These gents are also more likely to keep betting, with less, on subsequent streets. And they don’t whine when they take a beat with the best of it.

WOW those guys got some serious money from sng's

$87k
$67k
$58k

althought there average profit from each game is only about $2-3 Dollars

Do you play many sng's your self Jay, What sites do you find "easiest" ?

I have been playing a bit recently at Party Poker and find it relatively easy to make the money in $11 & $22 Dollar games by just playing standard ABC poker, there is no need to take chances with medium holdings as you nearly always get paid when holdong a big hand

phantom_lord

extreme multi-tabling pros playing $16 stts?

RoundTower

surely there is some automatic software that can display the guys sharkscope stats as a HUD. Assuming sharkscope doesn't have bot checks and such, it would not be technically difficult, and it would be useful. Therefore it exists.

jayhawk

I play some and I have accounts at Stars, Party and iPoker.

I would prefer to play SNGs at Party, but Party discriminates against tournament players and I have been unsuccessful obtaining a third-party unmentionables deal there, even after great effort, a fresh computer and a new account.

The competition at Stars is brutal, I believe, and multi-tabling the $16s there was too close to actually working.

iPoker is clearly the best spot for SNGs, in my view, simply because everybody's on a level playing field with respect to rakeback and bonus/points programs are open to tournament players, although grudgingly, I expect. Plus, no American idiot savants are allowed.

Were I a serial multi-tabler, however, the dreadful iPoker software would be enough to send me elsewhere; the inability to re-size tables is maddening and inexcusable. The latest Poker Ace beta still does not fully support iPoker (I often have to re-filter every 10 hands; in MTTs I literally have to reboot the site every table change), Sharkscope does not pick up tables automatically, SNG Power Tools does not support it, Tourney Manager does not support it. In fact, I dislike almost everything about iPoker, come to think of it, except they offer a fair game; and, without iBolide, I couldn't stand to look at it all day long.

I don't find any site or any game "soft" or "easy," I don't even believe in the concept, and I believe almost all claimants who allege there are such places or such things are either delusional, inexperienced, untruthful, can't count money or all of the above. The statistics are that no more than eight percent of online poker players enjoy long-run profit. And my experience is that about 80 percent of the game is skill (the same winning names keep cropping up in about that frequency). There's plenty of room left in that 20 percent worth of luck to produce more variance than one can live with or afford. There's always someone at any table good enough to beat you; if not, lucky enough on the day.

I do believe that one's game can improve over time, with great study and experience and patience (and results improve even more, since the opposition isn't working as hard; people are resistant to change and changing), and I do believe that some games, at some sites, at some levels, are better for some people than others.

I'm still looking...

padraig_f

The sample size may be small, but it's all you have. I think the stats converge pretty quickly to a players long-term tendencies anyway. If I have a 20% VPIP, I'd say it's rarely outside 15%-25% after 20 hands. If you don't have much hands on someone, just assign less weight to the stats in your thinking.

Also when you're playing sngs there's not much post-flop play, mostly what you want to know is who you can steal from and who you can't. When it comes to the time that blind-stealing becomes important, you should have enough hands on everyone to tell you that.