[hachkc]

To Phil's Post (aka I need to type faster)

Sure everyone get's cold deck but I'm comfortable basing a players VP$IP and PFR based on a 100 hands. Is it perfect, no but then neither is 500 or 5000 hands. Does this guarantee I'm gonna be right everytime, no. Instead of acting on the information for just the last few hands I've seen or can remember, I can make a decision with far more information than I would have had otherwise. If he turns over AK/QQ on river, when then I probably missed a few bets there. But when he turns over JJ/AA, I've saved a few bets also. To be honest, its all kind of moot as at least in this case I was dead on. I can honestly say, without PT/PA I would have lost more money on this hand. As I usually MT, its hard to be aware of everything going on at every table. So I use these tools as a crutch to make up for my lack of detailed info on each table.

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by Poboy

I don't think there is a specific number of hands. Fish you don't need that many hands, because if someone is playing a lot of hands, they're playing a lot of hands. If you've got 35 hands on a guy and he's limped 21 of them, I think you have a pretty good idea of how he plays preflop. The tighter people are, the more hands I would want on them because tight could mean they are cold decked.

Agree 100%, the smaller the numbers, the more hands you need to be comfortable with them.

I probably would have been pushing around a tight passive guy like this, which would give me a little more information because if he were tight aggressive but cold decked, he would probably push back with nothing at some point to back me off. If he were truly tight passive and not cold decked, he'd just call and try to get me to keep bluffing him (apparently like this guy was doing).

If he's limping into a pot, agreed you wanna put pressure on him. When he makes it 5bb to go from UTG, you need to be much more cautious though. Had he turned over AK/QQ, I would be kicking myself for playing like scared child and missing a few bets but I still would have won. Instead, I now look like some card reading genius and lost the minimum with a big hand. I'm curious what he was thinking when I turned over KK on the river.

[PhilTheThrill14]

100 hands would be statistically flawed. Using the statistics from 100 hands to solve a statistical dilemna is therefore flawed.

What you have done is used some arbitrary number(s) to help you make a decision. The decision turned out to be right. Not saying I wouldn't do the same thing - but that doesn't mean it's correct.

I'm not saying that the statistics on this guy in the long run won;t turn out to be what you have them as after 100 hands - but it is still incorrect to call them true after only 100 hands. The sample size is not sufficient to call true.

[PhilTheThrill14]

Also - you can't look at the 100 hands, label the guy as "xyz" and then say you don't need more than 100 hands for an "xyz" type player. Seriously flawed logic there.....statistically speaking. Could have been the guys wife playing for a couple hours.......who knows.

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

100 hands would be statistically flawed. Using the statistics from 100 hands to solve a statistical dilemna is therefore flawed.

So do I ignore what information because its statistically flawed? That would be stupid, I simply made a decision on based upon what information I had available as incomplete or inaccurate as it was. Unless you are playing on Absolute, you have to deal with incomplete information all the time while playing online (or live). Based upon what information I had available, I made a decision to play extremely cautious as that has a smaller downside versus taking an aggressive approach. To paraphrase an overused phrase, I refused to play a big pot with only a big pair.

What you have done is used some arbitrary number(s) to help you make a decision. The decision turned out to be right. Not saying I wouldn't do the same thing - but that doesn't mean it's correct.

I'm not saying that the statistics on this guy in the long run won;t turn out to be what you have them as after 100 hands - but it is still incorrect to call them true after only 100 hands. The sample size is not sufficient to call true.

First off, I never claimed that I 100% guarantee that these numbers accurately reflect his playing style which is how I might define true. As for them being arbitrary, I claim that they are not arbitrary as that is 100% of the information available to me. I readily admit that information to be somewhat inaccurate but its not like I decided 100 was a better choice than 50 or 200; I used all that I had. The degree of inaccuracy is defintely a matter of debate but not one we can solve. Give me 10 hands on this guy with the same stats and I play the hand differently without a doubt. Give me 5000 hands on this guy with the same stats and I may simply call preflop and fold any flop without a K on it.

[hachkc]

Phil, do you use PT or a similar product?

Do you use a HUD like PA or GT?

If so, how many hands do you require before you show any stats on a player? Is 10, 100, 1000, 10000? Just curious. I think mine is 10 or 15, can't remember off hand.

[PhilTheThrill14]

I'm not trying to argue with you - just pointing out that 100 hands is not enough hands for the statistics to be accurate - so using themis like closing your eyes and picking a number from 1 to 10. Like I said - the 100 hands could have been a 2 hour period where he had taken a few vicadins for a sprained ankle, or his wife was playing under his screenname, or there was a good ballgame on TV and he just wasn't playing very aggressive and waiting for big pairs. Who knows - that's what's wrong with 100 hands. To say that's all you have so you use it is totally illogical - I don't know how else to explain it. If the data is flawed statistically - using it because it is all you have is silly.

I'm really not being a jerk.....

I don't use PT but I do have it. Just haven't really played enough Ring Games to have it be profitable for me - I don't play that much online anymore.

[hachkc]

Simple question, ignoring the PT data, how do you play the hand?

I'll post the details I have about him upto the point of this from this session when I get home.

[PhilTheThrill14]

Kinda late asking me....since I know how the hand played out with the way you bet....

I would have raised him a tad more preflop - maybe to 3.25 or 3.50 - not much more than you. And now I don't know what he would do. We can't use the results to really justify the play.....

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

To say that's all you have so you use it is totally illogical - I don't know how else to explain it. If the data is flawed statistically - using it because it is all you have is silly.

no...no...no.

i'd say the reverse is much much more true. to ignore the data available b/c it's not as complete as we'd like is silly, illogical, and all the other words you used. this is the reality of poker, phil. all sample sizes are small, and so we do our best with what we have.

example: my samples of you, hachkc, fsu, trutan, and seitz and dollevoet TOGETHER probably is < 10k. so...do i ignore it b/c it's too small? that'd be ridiculous. despite the smallish sample, i know each of you very well, well enough to make good guesses in nearly any situation.

whenever you've collected data, you use it. do so carefully, balancing it with other information available (your fundamental understanding of hand values, action earlier in the hand, meta-considerations, et cetera), and make your best guess. isn't that just what you have to do in any hand you play...ever?