Excession’s Pokertracker Guide Part 2A..

by Excession

This part of the guide revisits the autorate rules and analysis of player types in greater detail than was found in the original part 2. It also uses slightly modified autorate rules (as explained below).

These can be downloaded here.

The table below needs some explanation.

It is based on my PT database of 10c/25c and 25/50c NL hands (over 30,000 of them mostly the latter).

The columns are respectively: type of player; number (out of 5856) of players who come under this category when rated with at least 20 hands played, % of all 20 hand+ players this represents, BB/100 (won or lost)(20+ hands); number with at least 50 hands played, % of all 50 hand+ players this represents, % of 20+ hand players in this category who didn’t manage to log 50 hands played with me, BB/100 (won or lost)(50+hands).

Category	No. @ 20	%	BB/100	No. @ 50	%	Drop out by 50+ hands%	BB/100
LPP (fish)	388	6.6	-9.9	102	4.9	74	-2.4
sLPP	493	8.4	-5.8	178	8.6	64	-1.1
Vanilla	203	3.5	+5.8	103	5	49	+3.7
sLAP	164	2.8	-2.6	36	1.7	68	+6.6
TAP	147	2.5	+5.9	32	1.5	78	+9.7
LAA	592	10.1	-1.3	154	7.5	74	+3.6
LAP	182	3.1	-5.4	38	1.8	79	-17.1
TPP	762	13	-2.7	236	11.4	69	-1.7
sLAA	494	8.4	+9.7	200	9.7	60	+9.8
sLPA	668	11.4	+1.9	271	13.1	59	+2.8
CS	450	7.7	-15	90	4.4	80	-4
TPA	712	12.2	+1.6	397	19.2	44	+1.6
LPA	412	7	-1	132	6.3	68	+8.1
TAA	189	3.2	+11	98	4.7	48	+8.4
Total	5856	100	-0.2	2067	100	65	+2.4

The fist point is that I have changed my NL auto-ratings slightly for this table..

I have removed the separate Maniac category and used the slot for another Category 1, the ‘Vanilla’ player.

There are two reasons for removing the Maniac category.

The first is that it would be very misleading to leave it in as, after 50 hands, Maniacs were by far the biggest winners (+19BB/100). But this does not mean that extreme loose/aggression is a good strategy. After 20 hands maniacs were 5% of players and big losers (-12BB/100). But 30 hands later 4 out of 5 Maniacs have understandably busted out (or at least left the table), leaving the lucky few survivors with big positive BB/100’s of +19.

The maniac is an extreme case of ‘self-selection’ of the lucky players. I’ve included ‘drop out percentages for the other strategies between 20 and 50 hands to show those strategies that are ‘failing’ more than the average.

The other reason is that I really wanted a slot for the ‘average’ player. This is a pretty solid player who likes to see flops when he can with Axs, medium suited connectors etc., has pre and post-flop aggression in the ‘normal’ range (VP$IP 25-35%, PFR 4-9%, PFA 1-2). I particularly felt that labelling such players aggressive or passive was misleading. As we don’t have enough slots for ‘neutral’ aggression options for each player type, and as a Vanilla player is often quite a solid winning player, I felt that this was the best I could do in the circumstances. I wouldn’t mind a Tight-Neutral vanilla category as well (and thought of trying to use the ‘default’ setting to squeeze this in) but for the moment I’ve just stuck to the 14 I can easily define.

Let’s turn to the categories in detail:

Loose Passive Passive (‘Fish’)

Note that at 20 hands the fish is the worst strategy apart from the calling station (minus 9.9BB/100). At 50 hands it looks better (-2.4) but the drop off rate tells the true story. High numbers of fish have busted out or left demoralised by then. It may also be that the slightly more discerning fish survive a bit longer, but whichever way you look at it this is a losing strategy and the presence of a fish (especially nearby on your left) is highly desirable when at a table.

Slighty Loose Passive Passive (‘Mini-Fish’)

Similar to fish although not as bad. Note that there are slightly more of these than true fish. They drop off at an average rate (they don’t play so many hands as the true fish so take longer to lose their money). But lose it they do. Again you want these guys at your table and preferably to your left.

Very slightly loose, neutral, neutral. Vanilla/ABC

This is a solid strategy at low stake NL tables. They tend to play more or less ABC poker, though some of the better ones may be capable of deceptive play. Their drop out rate is low, although they become slightly less effective as the hand count climbs, perhaps as they often aren’t too hard for the rest of the table to read. As they are winning players I prefer not to have them on my table although one or two isn’t going to put me off. Left or right of me doesn’t make much difference.

Slightly Loose Aggressive Passive

These guys raise pre-flop a lot, but then don’t follow through. This means they are either weak-tight or slowplaying. They are marginal losers after 20 hands. They have a slightly above average drop out rate, but the ones left do show a decent profit after 50 (+.6.6). I’m guessing that these are the ones who pick their spots and let overaggressive players bet into them when they hit. Their presence wouldn’t put me off a table, nor particularly draw me to it. As they are pre-flop aggressive I would prefer these guys on my right (so I can limp more easily). Also as they are passive post-flop but raise a lot of hands, if they don’t raise ahead of you they are likely to fold to your raise.

Tight Aggressive Passive

These guys are winners, both at 20+ (+6.6) and 50+ (+9.7) hands. But they are passive post-flop (generally regarded as bad i.e. ‘weak-tight’) and have a huge drop out rate. They are also very rare (2.5%/1.5% at 20/50 hands). What’s going on?

Well my guess is that a lot of these are slowplayers. They have the discipline to be tight aggressive pre-flop and for the first few rounds at a table just sit back and watch the overaggressive impale themselves on their slowplayed hands. This is quite profitable. I suspect that the increase in their win rates to 50 hands is an illusion, caused in part by the same self-selection process that only leaves in the most successful maniacs.

I think the 78% drop out rate is caused by a combination of the slowplaying catching up with them when they get outdrawn on a big hand and also that many of them hit and run, finding another table, when the aggressive players on this one get wise to their strategy and slowdown against them. I suspected they were slowplayers when I first came across them, which is why they have the warning sign icon for ‘tricksy’ players auto assigned. They are winning players and tricky, and as a post-flop aggressive myself, I don’t really appreciate them at my table. Fortunately they are very rare.

Loose Aggressive Aggressive

A full 10% of players play this way (it now includes the maniac as well). It shows the power of aggression in NL that even loose pre-flop players don’t do to badly. They have large variance, often cause other players to play sub-optimally against them and (towards the maniac end of the rating) dominate the play at the tables they are at (for good or ill). They are marginal losers at 20 hands+ (but not by much). The apparent return to profit at 50 hands + is likely an artefact of self-selection as mentioned above – note the high drop out rate) and so can be ignored.

However if you do see one with lot of profitable hands logged , he could be not just lucky but good at reading and picking his spots, so beware! I don’t mind one of these at my table, but personally don’t like to see too many as I have to adapt from my slightly loose aggressive aggressive game and huddle down into ‘bear hunt mode’ which removes a lot of the advantages against the more passive players given to me by PT. You want maniacs on your left, so you can see their raises coming and can let them bet into you when you really hit a hand.

Loose Aggressive Passive

Not many of these around (3.1%/1.8% at 20+/50+) and it’s a shame.
See lots of flops. Put money in pre-flop Then go all weak-tight. Does this sound like a good strategy? Well it’s not! Lose badly at 20 (-5.4) and the few survivors are still leaking money all over the place at 50 (-17) (I guess as the table realises it can run them over). I want these guys with me at the table (to the left would be nice but anywhere will do).

Tight Passive Passive. The ‘Rock’

The most common player type (13%) and a slow and steady loser. They don’t manage to outrun the rake nor do they contribute anything to the table. Ignoring the rakwe they are basically break even players. The rock dreams of a maniac calling his pre-flop raised aces and then betting into him all the way. It happens of course, but rocks are ridiculously easy to read (especially with GT+ up), don’t get enough in the pot when they are ahead or fold too easily under pressure. The win money off folks who don’t spot that they are rocks and give them too much action with marginal hands. They lose to you as you only get mixed up with them when you have the monster hand or when stealing their blinds. They cause hardly any trouble or offence. I don’t mind them and, as they don’t raise (or play much), I like them best in the blinds immediately to my left (so I can steal them).

Slightly Loose Aggressive Aggressive

A winning strategy (similar to TAA but seeing a few more flops – not a bad thing in NL if the table is passive and you can pick your spots well). Consistently wins about 10BB/hour and has a lower than average drop out rate. I dislike these at a table more than TAA’s (as these have more impact as they play more hands and are a bit harder to read). If I must have one I’d want him on my right (and preferably folded!).

Slightly Loose Passive Aggressive

Another winning strategy (about +2BB/100) but not to the same extent as the sLAA. Life is easier as they don’t raise pre-flop but are not easy to push around afterwards. I’d prefer them not to be at my table (as with any winning player) but it’s not the end of the world if they show up. I don’t mind where they sit. Common (about 12% of players).

Calling Station

Ah – everybody’s friend the calling station. Not too rare (7.7%) but they don’t hang around for long!

First a word of warning. This player is a sLPP or LPP player who goes to showdown on at least 35% of the flops he sees. Unlike the pre-flop stats (and more so than post-flop aggression) WtSD takes a while to settle down. I wouldn’t put much store by a payer rated as CS after only 25 hands as he may have just had a couple of draws that were worth calling down with (although as sLPP and LPP are both bad strategies in the long haul he is likely a bad player – it’s just a case of what sort of bad player is he?).

CS’s lose 15BB/100 on their own at 20+ hands (as much as an entire rock garden). By 50 hands 80% have gone (busted out no doubt) and the ones that are left are losing at 4BB/100 (again an artefact of self-selection for luck rather than skill – maybe someone without GT+ tried to bluff them!).
I love these guys and want them close on my left so I can bet into them when I get a hand. But if you like raisng it up with very little you will have to change your playstyle with a CS in the pot.

‘DO NOT BLUFF CALLING STATIONS’. That’s such good advice I’ll say it again ‘DO NOT BLUFF CALLING STATIONS’. There. Don’t say I didn’t make that clear.

Tight Passive Aggressive

A marginally winning strategy - + 1.6BB/100 – they only play good hands but let limpers in for cheap. You can see how that cuts down their EV by comparing them to TAA’s. Easier to play against than TAA’s but do watch out when they limp as they may have a much better hand than you expect. They tend to be very patient and have a very low drop out rate. I don’t mind where they are on the table really (right is marginally preferable so you can drop very marginal hands if they don’t fold).

Loose Passive Aggressive

If you just averaged the stats you would think that LPA is better than TPA – which seems odd. However the LPA is a small loser at 20 hands and has a higher than average drop out rate (indicating danger at taking the 50 figure of +8.1 at face value). Nevertheless this strategy is best described as ‘see a lot of cheap flops then play aggressive post flop’ and is probably a marginal winner overall at these NL tables.
Although I don’t particularly want them at my table, I’m pretty neutral about having one around, wherever they sit.

Tight Aggressive Aggressive

Ah the ‘stone-killer’. In one respect it’s a bit like the words ‘from LA’ on the online info! So many players will claim to be it and so few actually are (3.2%).
Actually reviewing my stats for last month I realise that I now (just) am ! ?
They win lots (about 10BB/100) and have a low drop out rate. The slight fall off in the win rate is probably as players at the table realise that they tend to have the goods when they raise. As a GT+ user and pre sit-down observer you of course knew this from the outset and so haven’t got involved with the TAA with anything marginal! They are bad to have at a table not so much because you lose money to them (you can just avoid them and as they are tight this isn’t usually an issue) but because they take money away from the other players. They are so rare that you won’t often get two at your table. If I had to have one I would prefer a TAA to my right so I can get out for free if he raises.

So let’s summarise the player types by how much we want them (or don’t) at our table.

‘Donators’
Loose Passive Passive (fish)
Slighty Loose Passive Passive (mini-fish).
Loose Aggressive Passive (loose weak-tight)
Calling Station
[True Maniacs]*

Neutral
Tight Passive Passive. (rocks)
Loose Aggressive Aggressive (unless maniac)
Slightly Loose Aggressive Passive
Loose Passive Aggressive

Minor Problems
Very slightly Loose, Neutral, Neutral. (vanilla/ABC)
Slightly Loose Passive Aggressive
Tight Passive Aggressive

Rather Avoid
Tight Aggressive Passive (slowplayer)
Slightly Loose Aggressive Aggressive
Tight Aggressive Aggressive

* these you spot yourself as a sub-set of LA-A using these rules.

Anyone with 50% VP$IP, PFR 15%+ and PFA of 2+ can be safely classed as a Maniac.

--excession

You can find excession on our forums.