THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum
Old Aug 01, 2005, 2:10pm   #21
xenthebrain
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
 
xenthebrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,408
Reputation: 465
xenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of light
Default

If you die tomorrow or stop playing tomorrow you don't have to care, cause you either take the up- oder the downside of the swing and stay with that.
xenthebrain est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old Aug 01, 2005, 4:43pm   #22
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjitsu
If you intend to play continuously, are you more likely to go broke playing 1000000 hands in a week, or 1000000 in a month.

Its a non-issue, because those hands are going to get played.
you have a finite lifespan in which to play as many hands as possible. Playing 1 table you will get through n hands in your life. Lets assume that you are a winning player who should not expect to bust over n hands, that doesn't prove that you won't go bust over 4n hands.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2005, 6:20pm   #23
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

If I have a 10 sided die, and I start with 100 bucks.

I bet 1 that the number will come up 5 or higher.

The odds of me going broke in N rolls i suspect is significantly higher than the 3N rolls that follow.

For the simple reason that in a situation where you expect to win, you win. And the more you win, the more unlikely it is that you can bust.

And more contradictory to your theory, in poker you can alter the betting levels at any time.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2005, 7:04pm   #24
xenthebrain
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
 
xenthebrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,408
Reputation: 465
xenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of light
Default

As a winning player, thus having a positive overall expectation, you should get as many hands in as possible.

Of course, variance by time increases, but not variance by hand.
The only factor that can increase the variance by hand is the betsize.
xenthebrain est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2005, 8:50pm   #25
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

The possibility of variance increases, but as you win more and more money...the likelihood of busting decreases.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 02, 2005, 3:28pm   #26
Kazz
Grinder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 908
Reputation: 33
Kazz is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjitsu
I think saying its about individual comfort levels is dangerous with a lot of the readers here.

Individual comfort level is important. You have to be comfortable with the limits in regards to your bankroll.

However, there is also a mathematical aspect. There are rules you should follow regardless of whether or not you find something comfortable or uncomfortable, or else you may go broke. A LOT of players here seem to be comfortable playing with small rolls, but afterwards seem a bit uncomfortable after they lost all their money.
You're right, I didn't mean to say that it's always just about comfort levels. Assuming that you have another income to refill your bankroll if necessary though, it really is about what you're comfortable with and what you can afford to put into it. I think that most of the players here fit into this category, so they don't have to use guidelines as strict as pros do.

Still, even for a pro, if you're not comfortable playing limit with 300BB then you need more even though the math would say that it's probably not necessary. Anything that makes you uncomfortable playing can hurt your game, which is the main reason I say that the amount you need in your bankroll (above a mathematically necessary minimum) is really about individual comfort levels. I should probably make that more clear when I talk about it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjitsu
I think the tilting issue is a misrepresentation though. It is one big session afterall. And tilting while playing at 4 tables is not the equivalent of tilting for 4 straight hours at one table.

Its the same as tilting for one hour during 4 different blcoks of time.

So you play 8 hours of 4 tabling. You tilt during hour 3.

That would be the same as playing 8 hours monday-thursday, and tilting during hour 3 each day. Its not the same as playing one 8 hour session and tilting for 4 hours during that session.
Okay, but the point was that if you do tilt, assuming you tilt for 1 hour before stopping, you can do more damage in less time playing at multiple tables.

Let's say you start at $5k, you tilt off $500 playing 1 table 4 times, but in the first 2 hours of those days before you tilt you win $1k each time. That leaves you at $5.5k, $6k, $6.5k and $7k after each of those days. Sure the $2k you lost sucks, but at some point you got yourself under control and stopped playing. You will probably be at least marginally satisfied seeing your bankroll steadily increase.

Now let's say you play 4 tables for 3 hours in 1 day and you get 75% of your 1 table win rate at each of them. After 2 hours you're up to $8k and things are lookin' great! Then you start to slip and you tilt for the next hour. You can still easily drop that same $2k, but depending on how you handle it you may end up better or even worse off.

That all depends on what you do when things aren't looking good. If you can say "Well, I'm still up $1k, I shouldn't have let myself tilt for so long, but there's nothing I can do now but stop and come back when I'm okay to play again." then it's not going to hurt you too much worse (in dollars) than if it had been over 4 days, and if you can see it happening early enough and you can stop yourself then the damage can even be much less.

If it does go on for the same amount of time though, and has the same degree of severity, I think that the loss amount in dollars will be about the same, but the percentage will actually be worse because you're already losing some money per table by playing 4 and I see no reason for a similar swing limiting effect on the down side, especially if you're tilting.

Now back to stoping ending the session when you're tilting. There are a lot of people who are unwilling or unable to do that. Once they start tilting (especially if the swing *looks* bad, and it will look worse if it's in a shorter amount of time) they will not stop until they get it back or go broke.

In fact some (a lot?) of them will move up to higher stakes and get busted trying to make it back quickly. That's a dangerous tendancy that seems to be set off more often when people take a large hit at once than if they take smaller hits over multiple sessions.

Another danger is that you just don't have a lot of time to sit back and think "Wow, this sucks! Maybe I should stop!" if you really start to tilt while multi-tabling. Once those weak hands start looking good, they'll be coming up on one table or another almost as fast as you can throw money at them.

If you let that happen you can lose a lot more money in less time....kinda' a snowball effect I guess. If it were broken up into multiple sessions and slowed down you might have been able to control it better or stop it earlier.

All of this stuff is very player dependent, but the basic point is you can't just assume that playing 4 tables at once has no effect other than seeing hands 4 times as fast.
Kazz est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 02, 2005, 3:47pm   #27
Kazz
Grinder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 908
Reputation: 33
Kazz is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenthebrain
As a winning player, thus having a positive overall expectation, you should get as many hands in as possible.
True, as long as nothing interferes with your winning, and the more tables you play at once the more chance there is that your win rate will decrease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenthebrain
Of course, variance by time increases, but not variance by hand.
The only factor that can increase the variance by hand is the betsize.
False. You have to remember that most of us are *people*, not Poker Machines and there will always be many factors which affect how we play and subesequently how much we win or lose.

Playing multiple tables can significantly affect our ability to see the details of what's going on at each table leading us to pay off bets we shouldn't have, fold when we shouldn't have, or not bet/raise when we should have based on our opponents' previous play.

In Pot Limit and No Limit the effect is even more pronounced because of the varied bet sizes (among other things). It really sucks to make a nice, friendly little bet to keep someone in and then find out later that you could have pushed all-in and still got a call from the guy.
Kazz est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 02, 2005, 3:49pm   #28
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

we seem to have found ourselves in another spot where notjitsu gets all 16th century catholic church on us, is this going to be another always buyin for the max argument?

tilting playing 4 tables concurrently for an hour will cost you more than tilting playing 1 table for 1 hour 4 times, it'll compound itself and you risk reaching a point at which you say "fuck it" and doing the rest of your money.

say your threshold is at 50BB, you'd have difficulty getting stuck this far playing 1 table and not quitting. Playing 4 tables you only have to lose half a buyin on every table and you're there, so say goodbye to the other 50 bets.

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 02, 2005, 5:13pm   #29
xenthebrain
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
 
xenthebrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,408
Reputation: 465
xenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of lightxenthebrain is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killcrazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenthebrain
Of course, variance by time increases, but not variance by hand.
The only factor that can increase the variance by hand is the betsize.
False. You have to remember that most of us are *people*, not Poker Machines and there will always be many factors which affect how we play and subesequently how much we win or lose.

Playing multiple tables can significantly affect our ability to see the details of what's going on at each table leading us to pay off bets we shouldn't have, fold when we shouldn't have, or not bet/raise when we should have based on our opponents' previous play.

In Pot Limit and No Limit the effect is even more pronounced because of the varied bet sizes (among other things). It really sucks to make a nice, friendly little bet to keep someone in and then find out later that you could have pushed all-in and still got a call from the guy.
Of course, I always said, if you play differently when you add tables you gotta calculate your necessary bankroll for the new winrate and new standard deviation on the tables.
When you winrate is lower you bankroll has to become bigger to maintane the old risk of ruin.
That was always the requirement for the theory.

I wouldn't recommend only having 300BB either, since if you start with a 80BB downswing you quickly don't have the necessary 300BB left and you would have to move down in limits.

As far the tilting argument goes, it's the same as for losing players, you have to come over it and master it or you will get broke
anytime, so this is IMO not a argument for bankroll management.

On these things everyone has to do his own individual bankroll management tricks (like setting a loss-stop when you quit, for tilters e.g.), but they should not be an argument everytime we try to solve a problem mathematically.
xenthebrain est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 03, 2005, 10:34pm   #30
NorthView
Professional
 
NorthView's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,816
Reputation: 0
NorthView
Default

Should we Ask Marilyn?

<<suggestion made in hope of seeing Kc refer to her as a retard>>
NorthView est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:02pm. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.