THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum
Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:11am   #11
kid hustlr
Professional
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,675
Reputation: 659
kid hustlr is a splendid one to beholdkid hustlr is a splendid one to beholdkid hustlr is a splendid one to beholdkid hustlr is a splendid one to beholdkid hustlr is a splendid one to beholdkid hustlr is a splendid one to behold
Default

yep 20 buy ins is a lot,

i buy in for the full amount tho and i 3 table so im sitting with 3 x $100 and things can happen pretty quickly shorthanded.

i think there are other aspects of variance tho:

i raise my AK from utg and the big blind calls the flop comes Jxx.

90% of the time it will be checked to me and i will bet about 90% of the time.

on a good day they muck immediately, on a bad day, they check raise and i have to give up the hand, reload and go again, the luck of other players influences variance IMO.

You see it all the time, players run hot on tables and build huge stacks and i think to myself, my god, if only this guy knew how well he was running.

As TWLLM said, i just want my time to run well to be when it's really important (like late in a tournament for a change).

as an aside, thank god i undertake proper BR management lol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by killcrazy View Post
aw, don't be sad.

"lucky in love, unlucky at cards", you must have bought yourself a fuck by now.
kid hustlr est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

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

Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:19am   #12
Insatiable36
Doyle Look-alike
 
Insatiable36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 310
Reputation: 10
Insatiable36 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWLLM View Post
That sucks Jimmy.

I'm sure we all know the feeling of losing 160 BBs in a quick time frame - I think I've lost that much in a hand before (if you meant big bets, for big blinds obviously I've lost more than that before - routine), and certainly between 2 tables at once.

PS - where's the flame about my post?! Either you're tired of reading my ramblings or you're starting to see what I'm saying... either way I'm surprized.
This is why I decided to not to play NL cash games. I couldn't handle these results.

About your post: i didn't understand half of it, but thats surly me not you.
__________________
I'm a beginner trying to make it to the end (game).
Insatiable36 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 2:39pm   #13
jimmytrick
Professional
 
jimmytrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,248
Reputation: 395
jimmytrick is just really nicejimmytrick is just really nicejimmytrick is just really nicejimmytrick is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWLLM View Post
That sucks Jimmy.

I'm sure we all know the feeling of losing 160 BBs in a quick time frame - I think I've lost that much in a hand before (if you meant big bets, for big blinds obviously I've lost more than that before - routine), and certainly between 2 tables at once.

PS - where's the flame about my post?! Either you're tired of reading my ramblings or you're starting to see what I'm saying... either way I'm surprized.
Wait, not 160BBs, it was 645.88 big blinds. No, I am not going to flame you. It is all very dreadful at times.
__________________

jimmytrick est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 4:43pm   #14
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

I make probably 100's of bb's of mistakes a week. If I made only 250 bbs worth of mistakes in a week, that would be a week where I played some pretty fucking good poker.

Thats just how it is. I'm leaving that money on the table via poor play. And I'm 100% a winning player.
-----

Listening to the responses here, 1 of 2 things is true.

1) I've just been super duper uber lucky for a few years.

2) You guys aren't playing as well as you're giving yourself credit for.

Because one thing I will say for sure, the quality of my play has always dictated a much larger swing in results than luck ever has. I'm by far the biggest variance in my game, and its not even close. And I' m a consistent winning player.

You can draw whatever conclusions you would like from this.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 5:10pm   #15
Molinero
Looking at You
 
Molinero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Frederikssund, Denmark
Posts: 2,068
Reputation: 1180
Molinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud ofMolinero has much to be proud of
Send a message via ICQ to Molinero Send a message via AIM to Molinero Send a message via MSN to Molinero
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 View Post
2) You guys aren't playing as well as you're giving yourself credit for.
There is no hope for me
Molinero est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 5:13pm   #16
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjitsu View Post
Listening to the responses here, 1 of 2 things is true.

1) I've just been super duper uber lucky for a few years.

2) You guys aren't playing as well as you're giving yourself credit for.

Because one thing I will say for sure, the quality of my play has always dictated a much larger swing in results than luck ever has. I'm by far the biggest variance in my game, and its not even close. And I' m a consistent winning player.

You can draw whatever conclusions you would like from this.
My conclusion (from the limited facts) is not that you've been "super duper" lucky at all - from the looks of it, if you're indeed being honest in saying you're the biggest "variance" in your game, it's more likely that you are falling somewhere very well within the regular distribution that's to be expected in the "long run". Nothing crazy about that suggestion, seems totally reasonable.

And I think Jimmy/KH weren't trying to say they're on huge downswings or horribly unlucky etc., they were just saying that they've had some crazy swings in past (KH said he won 10 buy-ins quickly right before - swings go both ways). It's only me who, so far, has claimed any real hardcore "bad luck"; they're just commenting on swings - so don't lump them in with the dude who left the cave and is now coming back with crazy tales about the sun.

The fact that most people are like you whether they realize it or not, in that they aren't overly lucky or overly unlucky, says nothing to the fact that not everybody is or "should be" like you. There are lottery winners, and there are people like that dude who lost the Party BBJ to a 1-outer. Do you literally believe they MUST have had something else happen in their lives (or will have something else happen) to balance their "luck" out?

As Lord Mushroom said on another thread, unless we all play infinitely there are (likely) going to be people on either side of what the natural propensity for outcomes is, and that's true whether or not you think I'm one. If 99/100 people are within X range of that distribution... that doesn't justify saying the 1/100 are clearly wrong about their position (although they may well be).
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 5:55pm   #17
BubbleBoy
BubbleBoy
 
BubbleBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: BubbleBoy
Posts: 11,484
Reputation: 28914
BubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy has a reputation beyond reputeBubbleBoy 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!
Default

there is certainly a lot to be said about variance. theoretically and practically.

I am just gonna say this:

The bigger your edge ovver your opponents, the smaller your variance.

We can derive a couple of things from that statement.

In case you're (theoretically one of) the best player in the world, always making the best and best decisions, your edge would be extremly large, thus your variance would be very, very small. But to play in this very idealistic way is quite far from reality. You cant get extensive reads on every of your opponents. You cant know how each of them is playing their hands in every scenario. PT can help you with this regard. Multitabling severly hurts your ability to make those best decisions.

As Notjitsu said, no one is playing the best game, so everybody is leaving A LOT of money at a table.

Now there comes up a very interesting aspect. Let me show an example.

You have a bankroll of 2000$ and you want to maximize your $/h rate. most players (like me) would choose to like 4-table NL50 for 5PTBB/100 times 4, so an average income of 10$/h at 50hands/h per table. 40-buyins should be enough. Though you dont like the variance. You know to cut down this variance thingy you eighter need to get better or to play less tables at a time. But you dont want to reduce your hourly earn rate. There is still a way to accomplish all 3 goals. To single table at NL200. First the income. Lets say you expect to make 2PTBB/100 so 8$/h, thats not less than before. you might say "I only have 10 buyins!" but at the same time your variance is way down cause you play much better and you only play one table.

Many people think they can make the most money multi tabling the mid-limits. They fear the boredom involved when only playing 1 table. This includes me. But it would be better to play only one table at a time, to get more skill and to cut down variance while not sacrificing parts of your income.

And about the luck factor, it evens out very very quickly. Of course if you only count the times you didnt hit your FD, you might be unlucky over 30k hands with only hitting 30% of them. But you cant see luck only when you are in a set-over-set situation. Luck is everywhere. There are lots of luck that you cant even see at the pokertable.


If you run bad over several tens of thousands of hands there are only 2 reasons for that:
1. you play worse than you think you do (this applies for almost every player)
2. your edge is very small
__________________

BubbleBoy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:11pm   #18
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbleBoy View Post
If you run bad over several tens of thousands of hands there are only 2 reasons for that:
1. you play worse than you think you do (this applies for almost every player)
2. your edge is very small
No, there are three:
1 and 2,
but also 3: your results fall outside the normal distribution despite the fact that you might have a very high confidence interval - if your confidence interval is 99.9999%, this is still never 100%.

I agree 1 and 2 are the most likely correct answers, but I HATE when people say 3 is impossible - determinism has no place in probability theory, except in the trash can.
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:29pm   #19
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

Anecdotal evidence of massively improbable statistical outcomes tends not to inspire awe. I'd like to see the database of hands. I think that would make an interesting read.

Although I will say, I have no doubt that one can run worse than expected for a prolonged period of time. However, the unlikelihood of it happening in a game in which you have a large edge and it renders you a losing player is nominal.

Just like a Casino could 'theoretically' lose for a year on all the 5 dollar roulette bets. But they haven't, and never will.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:46pm   #20
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjitsu View Post
Anecdotal evidence of massively improbable statistical outcomes tends not to inspire awe. I'd like to see the database of hands. I think that would make an interesting read.

Although I will say, I have no doubt that one can run worse than expected for a prolonged period of time. However, the unlikelihood of it happening in a game in which you have a large edge and it renders you a losing player is nominal.

Just like a Casino could 'theoretically' lose for a year on all the 5 dollar roulette bets. But they haven't, and never will.
Uhh... I don't know who taught you probability, but last time I checked the odds of me running bad for 4 months as I have, are far higher than the odds of a casino losing money on roulette for a year.

And I know what you're saying about databases, but in fairness I'm not making this up. Besides which, if you don't accept the relevance of X # of hands... how can you believe in the relevance of any # of hands added to X?

And to everyone who thinks it's illogical to conclude bad luck is the cause of a loss, it's also illogical to conclude bad play is - neither follows as a logical conclusion, even if one is more probable than the other over a certain # of hands.
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?
TWLLM 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 8:42am. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.