THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum
Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:47pm   #21
cetacean
Grinder
 
cetacean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 686
Reputation: 204
cetacean has a spectacular aura aboutcetacean has a spectacular aura aboutcetacean has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbleBoy View Post
I am just gonna say this:

The bigger your edge ovver your opponents, the smaller your variance.
I'm 95% sure that this statement is incorrect. Please provide some justification for this. Here is one rationale why this isn't the case:

The way that good players beat bad players is that they put money in whey they have an advantage. This is true both with large (80/20) advantages and small (55/45) advantages. What makes good players good players is they are better able to differentiate times when their bets are +EV (even slightly) from those that are -EV (even slightly). This means they will be putting their money in in more high risk situations (55/45) than a still profitable, but less edgy player. Therefore, they will (appropriately) lose more than someone who eschews 55/45 situations and only seeks out 80/20 situations. That's variance.

Short version: In the long run, someone who plays every situation where they have an edge will win more and have higher variance than people who only play situations where they are larger favorites.
cetacean est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

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

Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:56pm   #22
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

You have to play a crap load of hands at one level for the luck to even out. If you play six different levels of NL, four levels of FL, PLO @ 5 levels, O8 at 4 levels, plus 5CD, 3D, Horse, Stud, Stud H/L, Razz (at different levels), and STTs and MTTs both HE and other types at wide levels....well, then your luck determines how you come out. With all those variables you would have to play 40 years to get a true win rate.
__________________

jimmytrick est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 6:58pm   #23
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

It's true Cetacean: the greatest possible variance (in its actual mathematical meaning) is when the propensity of each outcomes in a binary model are 50/50. The greater your edge (the more you move away from 50/50) the less variance there is.

But, you don't have to believe me. Apparently everything I say is false (except that... and that... and that... and that...)
__________________
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, 7:09pm   #24
cetacean
Grinder
 
cetacean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 686
Reputation: 204
cetacean has a spectacular aura aboutcetacean has a spectacular aura aboutcetacean has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWLLM View Post
It's true Cetacean: the greatest possible variance (in its actual mathematical meaning) is when the propensity of each outcomes in a binary model are 50/50. The greater your edge (the more you move away from 50/50) the less variance there is.
Which is exactly why I'm right

Good players seek out more situations that are 55/45 than worse players. Therefore, on a hand-by-hand basis, they encounter more variance.
cetacean est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:12pm   #25
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

Of course its much more likely for you to lose than the casino. The point is that your semantic 'anything is possible' argument isn't good enough...because in reality, the probabilities can be stacked so high, that it may be 'possible' theoretically, but it is impossible for any practical discussion.

Of course its tough to tell with you, because all we have is hearsay. You are very unlucky for four months. How many hands? Hours? How unlucky? How do you measure luck?

For example, a oneoutter is really a coinflip in most situations. But you focus on the 44-1 aspect of it. You have no idea if you are getting lucky or unlucky in hands where you don't see showdowns. You probably have no idea how lucky or unlucky you are getting when you don't play hands if you are multi-tabling. You don't seem to know what your expected win rate is, so you have no idea how lucky or unlucky you are in regards to your winnings. You don't seem to have any statistics available, so really any statistical analysi can be thrown out the window.

All you've told us is that you lost to a few one outters, you never win with sets, and that you're terribly unlucky. You can't quantify anything. You are just very unlucky.

So when you start getting a little snooty with your deterministic probability talk, maybe you should bring a bit more to the table than the statistical summary of 'very'.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:20pm   #26
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

As for the moving away from 50/50, thats not completely accurate.

The simple counter-example is if you do 1000 55/45 situations. Or 1 80/20 situation. You will expect to be much closer to your expected outcome with the 1000 55/45 moves.

The point being, while you are taking on more risk very shortterm, you are increasing your sample size quicker, so that slightly short term luck will have less effect on you even though there will be more chances for it to impact you.

And this doesn't take into consideration a lot of the more complex issue of the actual value of plays.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:25pm   #27
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

Not., I never said I expected you to believe me: if anything, your default belief is that it isn't true unless proven otherwise. So I agree with you there.

However, your assumption that a 4 month losing streak is untenable is ridiculous (unlike the casino example). Established pros can have losing years... and their variance would be much lower than mine right? Setting aside the exact question of whether I really am "unlucky" right now, the suggestion that this is a situation where the odds make it a de facto impossibility (although not a theoretical one) is just absurd.

The whole 'snooty' determinism thing is a longstanding intellectual position I have, which I developed long before this bad streak. I just can't stand people who say 'if you lose you're a bad player, if you win youre a good player'. I don't have a problem with your "if you had this supposed streak, it's more likely you're a losing player than just unlucky", but once you take that step to saying "we know you're a losing player because you can't possibly be unlucky for this long" I have a problem.
__________________
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?

Last edited by TWLLM; Feb 18, 2007 at 7:34pm.
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 7:44pm   #28
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
As for the moving away from 50/50, thats not completely accurate.

The simple counter-example is if you do 1000 55/45 situations. Or 1 80/20 situation. You will expect to be much closer to your expected outcome with the 1000 55/45 moves.

The point being, while you are taking on more risk very shortterm, you are increasing your sample size quicker, so that slightly short term luck will have less effect on you even though there will be more chances for it to impact you.

And this doesn't take into consideration a lot of the more complex issue of the actual value of plays.
You're right the simple binary model doesn't work perfectly for something as complicated as poker, but what else can we possibly use? And it is true that the highest variance is when the system is 50/50 in a binary system used to model the 'long run' propensity.

I'd love to see your proof to the contrary if that's what you were saying (not accusing, I'm just unsure) - I'm sure there is a whole school of philosophers of probability and statisticians who would.

When I said the variance was highest at 50/50, I was talking about the "longterm" theoretical variance, not one hand. If it's on one test only there can be no variance (except 100%, as in yes/no or win/lose, which kinda violates the definition of variance doesn't it?). Variance doesn't really speak to one single hand, as you've been very quick to point out about the whole 'one outer' scenario in my other posts.

BTW, I should point out, i don't think I've ever lost to a 'one outer' where it was a 'coinflip' at any point in the hand, speaking in terms of the long-run propensity. Care to explain that one?
__________________
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, 8:17pm   #29
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

Getting back to poker practicality.

Playing on poker room, players are a lot more looser and as a result there are a lot more showdowns which occur before the river. Thus i feel i endure bigger swings simply because your chips are in the middle more times. Playing on stars there are a lot of raises/reraises and folds which dictate the cards are not turned over as often. Will this influence good and bad luck swings?

In regards to being lucky overall, nojitsu it's impossible to compare luck over ever hand as you said but we can measure luck once the chips are in the middle.

Finally, if, going on pure luck measured once the chips are in the middle, i was to win a hand where i was 6% once the chips went in, does that mean for my 'luck' to be even, i should lose 4 races in a row? (1/2^4 = 1/16 = roughly 6%) ?
__________________
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
Old Feb 18, 2007, 10:37pm   #30
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

I'll take the 1 outter coinflip, because thats the easiest.

If you are involved in a set over set, its a coinflip. Doesn't matter what you have. Obviously there are small variations in how people play that would alter this a bit. Some people will play less small pairs, some people may be overly fearful of bigger sets...etc...but this is a simplification of the way it is.

I call them coinflips, because when you are involved in a set over set situation, you will win half the time. Having the higher set twice in a row is the same luck as having the lower set twice in a row and hitting the one outter.

In the grand scheme of things, its a wash.

Its kind of like AKs vs. QQ allin preflop. If the flop comes QQ4. Then the AK hits the runner runner royal flush....the QQ didn't just get unlucky, because the reality is that its even money when the chips go in the pot.

Under generic circumstances, when you flop a set, your chips go in the pot. So who happens to have the higher set is a coinflip generically speaking.

Poker is filled with these kinds of situations. Sort of preordained hands, where the value exists beyond the actual cards and for the situation themselves. The point being that if neither of you play the hand differently in eachothers shoes, then the EV is 0 regardless of what happens. Whether its runner runner royal flush, or the hand holds up without incident.

------------

I'm not sure what you are looking for with the variance talk. Obviously 50/50 has the most variance. But its not just a matter of the probability of the individual hands. Its a matter of creating a larger number of +EV sitiuations on which results will rely on. So while the variance will increase because of the lower success rate, it will decrease at the same time because of the increased sample size. We know that the more hands that are relied upon, the more likely to get the expected result. I don't know which plays a larger role. But I know that they offset eachother to some degree.

You say long run, but because the sample sizes aren't increasing at the same size in the long run, the standard deviations wouldn't be either. You will win more consistently in 1000 70/30 hands than 500 70/30's and 500 55/45's. But what matter is how the consistency of 1000 70/30's + however many 55/45's come up.

And the most obvious shortcoming accompanying this logic in the poker world is that often times passing up a slight +EV situation cements the play as slightly -EV. So not only do you not gain the 10% advantage, you lose the money you already invested in the pot.100% of the time.
------------

As for believing you, its not even a matter of that. For all we know, you played 40 hours in 4 months? There is so little information that there its silly to share with us. Sort of like saying I had KK, went allin and Lost!!! Can you believe it!!!? And not saying anything more about the hand.

It doesn't help that "I'm on a horrible streak of luck and its led to a downswing" is in the top 5 of all poker forum posts, and I've yet to see a "I lost some money because I'm just not that good" has yet to be sighted.

------------

Kid hustlr, you can measure luck by what happens when the money is in the pot in specific hands, but thats not an accurate assessment of someones luck. In fact, once the money is in the middle is often the least luck related time. If you have AA, the odds of someone having KK at a fulltable is what? 1 in 25 or something? And the odds of the KK sucking out on you is only 1 in 5. So you are 5 times more lucky to be in the situation of AA vs. KK t han they would be lucky having KK beat your AA. You have to look at everything from as far away as possible to determine real luck and value.
Notjitsu 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 6:54am. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.