Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="aliengenius, post: 543764, member: 11924"]
Sorry I didn't have much time to look at them (I've been packing :D!).

Pretty good looking, I see where your logic is coming from.

Here are some constructive criticisms:

1. Why do you use "when fold %" instead of "vp$ip" as your measure of how loose a player is? I think you are skewing the numbers by not using vp$ip.

You may want to tighten up some of the info these stats are giving you:

2. For "calling station" you have it as just a fish that sees the river more. However, when looking at the icon/description in a game the information you are looking for is how likely is this guy to call vs be bluffed. In other words, his stats don't necessarily have to be as fishy as the fish for him to be a calling station (i.e., vp$ip doesn't necessarily have to be as high).

3. Also, someone seeing 50% of flops you define as LAG. I would want to see that person get the "gambler" label instead. I suggest lowering your looseness line from 55% down to 35% across all categories (not just the lag/gambler distinction).

4. Same with aggression. You seem to draw lines at either .75 or 1 (for the better players). I would bump this up, to 1.35 and 2.

5. I think your definition of weak-tight is off. Maybe you are using it to mean something different than what I generally consider it to mean, but the main stat here is NOT seeing the river, despite other stats like good low vp$ip and pfr%; i.e., the guy folds far too often when he should not be.

Hope those comments make sense and help you tune them up!
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us