Further to . . . and following on from earlier comments:-
I've passed the 2000 hands played mark now, and thought it a good time to take stock.
I've posted my (hard coded) raw data stats from my play if anyone's interested. They show some useful averages and trends viz:
only c28% of hands have been contested to a showdown. More of these are winners than losers, and the rake from the hands won averages out at 15.59%.
of the 72% of hands folded;
37% were folded pre-flop at no cost,
26% were folded with a single big blind or small blind loss (low cost to see the flop when holding a potentinal and then bailing out when nothing hits),
Only 6% of folds were after more than a single big blind had been put in (most being calling into the flop after a raise and then bailing when nothing hits).
The overall cost of the folds averages out at just under 15% of the total bet, and 30% of the total loses. I see these costs as the levy to play.
From various bits I've read, these rates of play seem to fall into line as a conservative game - still scope to tighten up and limp in less.
As to the overall loss, although it represents around 8% of the total bet, the majority of it is the result of the outcome of less than 20 hands - bad beats and poor final calls (I'm not saying I haven't made any). Two hands in particular stand out - one where I lost 3.50 (18% of losses); called an all in with a FH on the flop and the other needed just one card out of the 47 remaining unseens to top my hand. It came in. Another similar was on calling an all-in where the guy needed two for an inside straight to win - they came in on the turn and the river (calculated the chances of that at around 65-1). These two hands alone represent 25%-30% of the total losses recorded, and thereby significantly skew the figures.
Isolate the impact of these hands and remove them from the analysis (something I've still to do) and I suspect the trend will show something along the lines of playing a game that covers the costs of the folded hands and the rake, but that's it (even that requires playing with an 18%-ish advantage). I'll see.
One of the recurring dynamics of the game (from my sample) seems to be that despite grinding away playing a reasonably solid game that covers the blinds and the rate, 1%-ish of the time something will happen to throw a spanner in the works and which has a significant impact on the trends, and which means walking away an overall loser - bad beats or perhaps a temporary lapse of concentration?
Question is I suppose is where does one go from here? Earlier someone did suggest playing more hands. I'm not sure how losening up and playing more hands is going to increase the win rate, and can only see it adding to the cost of folded hands and getting zapped at the showdown?
Finally, having compiled these figures (albeit from a relatively small sample) I'm even more sceptical now when people tell me they're overall winning poker players - unless they can show analysed stats to back up the statement, similar to the attached. Depends on the definition of winning player of course. Anyone who's balance(s) are greater than their deposits can claim to be a winning player, but then you can say that about someone sitting at a roulette table with more chips than they bought in for. We all know roulette's a losing game, and routinely dismiss claims that people make that they're playing with a winning strategy - they're not, they're just in front at that particular point in time.
Despite the above I've still an open mind, but with the combination of the levy to play (cost of folds), the house rake and the variance in the game it's certainly a tough nut to crack.
Further comments appreciated.
g
