I ran this by the masses at 2+2, and thats about what they said. I never figured the bunching theory to have much affect anyways, i'm just curious if you could prove its existence in Hold'em from a sim. (And yes I was expecting Bonch's response to the "bonching" theory, which is to totally live on PF.o and post constantly. j/k bonch )

__________________

You could definately try.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

If you look through the references that were posted, someone tried to run a sim, and there said there is some slight affect, but it depends on what your oppnenets play and it was not enough to change correct button play.

back to my original question... lets discuss dem's response....

__________________

I believe poker tracker tracks(heh) how much you steal blinds, or at least your aggresion rating. You could ask some winning players to post their PT stats.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I really don't get what deme is saying, but I'm really interested in it. Can anyone explain it?

Here was my interpretation.

Good players will attack the blinds when their hand is better than a randomly distributed hand in the SB and BB. The blinds will sometimes defend. Action will ensue, the rake will build up, and in the end, someone takes the pot. But the very thing that they were fighting for / defending in the first place, the blinds, is essentially lost to the rake.

So if you take two equally-skilled players, eventually the blind steal/defense situation will come up again and again, and eventually you're not even fighting for the blinds, you are fighting against each other, which is bad of course b/c you are both equally skilled, meaning you're just losing to the rake.

That's how I interpreted deme's post.

But I don't get how this prevents us from "playing good poker," which he brought up a lot of times in his post. Isn't this why we look for good tables per se. Are you saying that we're forced to look for bad players in order to beat the rake, and that we can't excercise our skills or challenge ourselves by trying to go up against a worthy opponent, which in essence prevents us from "playing good poker"?

Also does anyone know what Pokerchamps does differently?

Thats why I asked this LOL!

__________________

Ill run a simulation on this, with the requirements for "good" hands in the big blinds in accordance with slanksys hold em for advanced players. Good hands will be any group 1,2, or 3 hand. If you guys think i should higher or lower the starting requirments let me know, otherwise i will run the simulation and let you know what i get.

Group 1, 2, and 3 are: aa, kk, qq, jj, aks, tt, aqs , ajs, kqs, ak, 99, jts, qjs, kjs, ats, aqs

Yeah, Ill raise late with 67s if its folded to me.

What are you running that on? Can it count the occurance oif each hand and track them indiviudally on a histogram?

__________________

I will be using ox or matlab, and yes it will be able to track each individual occurance, i can track them on a histogram, find the 5-number summary, make a boxplot of the data, make a stem and leaf plot, etc. I will post all results in a couple of days.