NL10 Benchmarking - Autoratings

[GaF]

Have just been fiddling around in PT3 with the autoratings (using default settings). First off, this is how each of the PL players have been rated: These are the labels attatched to each symbol. My intention next is to filter by each category and record the BB/100 to see which styles of play seem to work (and which dont) at NL10.....

[GaF]

Re: NL10 Benchmarking - Autoratings Ah - cant filter by Player Icon in PT3 (you could in PT2) - which forced me to look for an alternative, and you can do it in the reports - which is far easier than what I was intending to do :) So in order, the descriptions are: Tight Passive/Passive (Very small sample) Tight Aggressive/Passive Tight Aggressive/Aggressive Semi-Loose Passive/Passive Tight-Aggressive Semi Loose Passive/Aggressive Semi Loose Aggressive Aggressive Tight-Passive/Aggressive Semi Loose Aggressive/Passive Loose Aggressive /Aggressive Loose Passive/Passive Loose Passive/Aggressive Loose Aggressive/Passive Unranked What can we take from that? - The most striking thing is that Loose does not work at all at this level!! We may be short handed, but tight definitely seems right! Semi Loose, which is where most of us fell even seems worse off than tight. - The big losers are those that dont stick around long enough to be rated (as you would expect) - you cant beat a table full of players you dont know by the looks of it!! - Passive/Aggressive seems less important than tight/loose and regulars/non regulars. I was going to do similar for NL25, but think we're lacking data there (about 20% of what we have for NL10), so I'll skip that.