QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
This is not a bad beat post. I am not looking for sympathy. I'm posting this to make people aware of what is possible in this game --- to put some reality to posts that speak of 15k, 25k, 50k, or even 100k hands. The long run is a long time.
I mentioned before that I was on a downswing larger than any I'd heard of from SS Full Ring. I'm am now pulling out of a 485 BB downswing. I've heard of other larger downswings from winning 6m players, but not from Full Ring. (However, I do know a 15/30 player that went on a 600BB downswing, and he's been playing pro for quite some time and still does.) The swing took place over 50,000 hands of 2/4 and 5/10, 25,000 hands of each. (380BB were lost at 2/4 and 105 were lost at 5/10.) At the end of it, I was at the same level, BB wise, as I had been 95,000 hands earlier. CDC once reported a 60,000 hand breakeven stretch, and that was the longest I had heard of previously.
I believe I play well. I believe I played well over this stretch. I reviewed hands. Sent hands to others. Talked about questionable hands with others. Trimmed down tables, etc. I play alert, I use game selection, seat selection, buddy lists, etc. It was just an amazing run of bad luck that I wouldn't believe was possible if I hadn't done it myself. The one self-indulgent thing I did start to keep track of was how my sets faired when I saw a showdown. When I started counting, I had noticed what seemed to be an excessive number of loses. I continued to lose the next 17 of 19 sets that went to showdown. The biggest thing was that I was losing all the large pots to river 1-4 outers, and winning small ones. (And, of course, the standard AA on AJJ flop meets JJ, ridiculous aggression like being 3 bet by someone who’s oop with only a gutshot catching the river, etc…we all know the stories.) People folding to my monsters, etc. - just everything bad was happening all at once.
If anything, this whole experience of being a pro has shown me how critical a bankroll really is. So, I'm posting this to highlight how long the long run really is. I'm at about 650k SS full ring hands now. I'm constantly amazed at how the 100k hands stretches differ from one another. I'm a much better player than I was in my first 100k, and my winrate in my first 100k was over 1.0 bb/100 larger than my last 100k before this 95k breakeven stretch. So, enough talk about 50k hands this or that, or 100k hands this or that. I think there's more luck in this game than most of us are giving credit.
Honestly, if someone came in this forum and posted that they went on a 485BB downswing in good SS games or that they just played almost 100k hands of good SS games and didn't make a dime outside of rb, I would have replied that they probably have some serious leaks. I think most of us would have. Perhaps they do have major leaks, perhaps they don’t. The fact is, this game has amazing stretches.
PS I will say however, that many of the hands I played at 5/10 were played in the day full games, which are ridiculous. Beating those games for 1BB/100 would be a major accomplishment; I do not think I am up to that standard. Table selection is so key. I tried my best to use table selection there, but unfortunately, I was at pretty much every 5/10 full game that pp has at those hours. In general, I think if a player wishes to remain at the pp network, and play during the day, and wishes to move up, 6m is the only option until they get to higher limits where the games seem to be good pretty much around the clock.
PPS
If I were a live pro playing at 35 hands/hour, which may be a high estimate for full ring live play, at 40 hours a week this would be 16 months of not making a dime. Yeah, I understand now why many authors have discouraged people from becoming pro and why a years living expenses in the bank is a really good idea.
|
siegfriedandroy
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/11/05
Posts: 2388
|
|
hey q,
sorry to hear about the bad run. i broke even at the 5/10 over 25k. no fun. are you over 1 bb/100 in aggregate over those 600k hands? after the above stretch, i decided to move down to 2/4 and 3/6 while I examine my game. It seems to have helped.
also, i was playing 5/10 during the day. perhaps that was no good. when you say higher limit games are okay around the clock, what levels are you referring to? Is 10/20 substantially different in that respect, or just as tough in the daytime? 15/30? I am curious.
In my breakeven stretch, I was bad with table selection. That is my main area to improve upon, imo. I think when multitabling in the future, I will mix my tables from 2/4 to 10/20, focusing strictly on finding the several best tables available here irregardless of limits.
better luck with the next 100k
|
Kwaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/04/05
Posts: 5191
Loc: On holidays. Again.
|
|
Do you hate the game yet?
EDIT to say: I think that the majority of good players will find that their break even/ losing stretches will come from (as you point out) losing the big pots and winning small ones.
If you were to count up the pots in your stretch that exceed 10BB you may have a stretch of less than 500 big pot losses.
Not having any draws come in is going happen. But your stretch of 17/19 sets cracked has to account for a majority of your losses.
Edited by Kwaz (01/20/06 04:07 PM)
|
MaxPower
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/15/03
Posts: 4578
Loc: New York
|
|
You are correct, but most people will never really believe it until it happens to them.
I do think that good table selection can affect the likelihood of these bad runs. My only goal for this year is to sit at good tables (correction, great tables) regardless of limit. So I will play below my normal limit if I cannot find good tables at that limit.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
siegfriedandroy:
I've lost 4 databases (someday I'll learn), I'm guessing I'm at like 1.9-2.1 over the 650k. However, there's a vast difference between playing day games and night games. The day games are the majority of this sample, and I'm happy with those results.
When I gave 15/30 a shot, it seemed like a very beatable game in the day. However, the game is much more aggressive, so bankroll becomes even more important. It seems like people there are either quite good or they've just come to gamble something serious. I only have about 20k hands in there, but that's what I saw when I've played there.
I'm not mourning my stretch here, just making people aware of how this game can be.
|
Bluffoon
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/21/04
Posts: 3078
Loc: Jersey
|
|
Yeah I recently went through a stretch like this. Not quite as deep but about as long. What struck me more than anything was not only is it possible to periodically run bad but it is also possible to have longer stretches where you run bad more than you run good. It was very discouraging and I hope that what I experienced is a once in a lifetime type of run. If I can look forward to regular stretches like that I think I quit poker.
|
siegfriedandroy
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/11/05
Posts: 2388
|
|
night games are generally better though, right?? Any experience with 10/20? How would you compare the ten and 15 with the five?? Thanks. gl
|
GH.
dont give him attention please
Reged: 01/10/05
Posts: 695
|
|
I've never swung as bad as you but I've hit 300BB before, and 200BB-300BB plenty of times. I'm sure if it's possible to hit 300BB it's techinically possible to hit near 500BB (just combine two bad downswings to get a mother of all downswings). I'm sorry that it happened to you but although 500BB seems rare it's possible. Play more and you'll get out of it eventually
|
Jake (The Snake)
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/31/04
Posts: 1612
Loc: Georgetown
|
|
What's the over/under on how long until one of the run-hots chime in and say you suck?
Hope it turns around for you man. The fact is that winrate really just doesn't tell you much about how good a player is. Variance and game selection among other things distorts it way too much.
Also, if you could post the SF% and Avg Pot numbers over the 25k stretch at 2/4, I would be interested in that.
|
Jake (The Snake)
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/31/04
Posts: 1612
Loc: Georgetown
|
|
Quote:
You are correct, but most people will never really believe it until it happens to them.
I do think that good table selection can affect the likelihood of these bad runs. My only goal for this year is to sit at good tables (correction, great tables) regardless of limit. So I will play below my normal limit if I cannot find good tables at that limit.
These are my feelings exactly. I remember reading a Ray Zee post not too long ago where he said something ridiculous about never have a XX BB downswing. I can't remember what it was but the number was really low, way lower than what people report here. I guess it shows just how much playing in good games can help you.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
Kwaz:
Um...at one point the other day, I swear I hated the game  But, the truth is, I still enjoy it.
Dealing with these things psychologically is a real treat. At some point over 300, I just pretty much decided to lose hope. Thoughts of filling out job applications filled me head...etc. Friends that understand the game sure are a great help to getting over these things. Earlier this week I decided not to look at results all week. I think that helped some. I also decided to quit telling others about amazing 1 outer rivers and blind wars with 88 on 778 boards against 77 and the like. I think that helped some too, although, I wasn't always successful at containing the need to share the story
If I drop another 500 starting now, we'll see how I do...
|
JojoDiego
enthusiast
Reged: 03/08/05
Posts: 253
Loc: consistently wrong
|
|
Holy crap, how'd you lose the databases? I backed mine up on a CD months ago when it was much smaller, but that's it.
And wow, a 50,000 hand or 100,000 hand downswing sure would suck. I single table and played around 35,000 hands over the past year, and losing or even just breaking even for that long would grind me down. Come to think of it, my BB/100 over those 35K is below 1 right now thanks to an autumn Downswing of Death...
|
jason_t
<3
Reged: 11/18/04
Posts: 12164
Loc: Harrowdown Hill
|
|
Please post a graph.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
[image] [/image]
[image] [/image]
|
colgin
Eye of the Tiger
Reged: 06/17/03
Posts: 2655
Loc: Cancer Survivor
|
|
Quote:
I'm a much better player than I was in my first 100k, and my winrate in my first 100k was over 1.0 bb/100 larger than my last 100k before this 95k breakeven stretch.
This is really f'king sobering, particularly to a hobbyist like myself who is lucky to get in 1200 hands per week. Basically, if I decide to continue to play, while I should obviously be playing my best and hoping to improve, I need to hope just as much that I generally run good since I will basicaly never ever reach a meaningful number of hands.
Quote:
Honestly, if someone came in this forum and posted that they went on a 485BB downswing in good SS games or that they just played almost 100k hands of good SS games and didn't make a dime outside of rb, I would have replied that they probably have some serious leaks. I think most of us would have. Perhaps they do have major leaks, perhaps they don’t. The fact is, this game has amazing stretches.
But you can have some leaks and still be winning 1+BB/100 in these games with any game selection. The fact that a decent to good player (even one with some leaks) can lose or break even over such a long stretch just shows (to your point) how metaphysically absurdly swingy this game is.
Sorry you are running so bad. As someone in a very similar boat of late you have my sympathy. Hang in there.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
Jake:
The majority of this stretch had a SF% of 32.42 and an average pot size of 6.57BB. This is the 2/4 section.
The 5/10, as I said, were horrible tables, but most of the stretch didn't come from that.
|
bobhalford
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/06/05
Posts: 2519
|
|
Is a 500BB downswing really all that bad? If I 4-table, I can go up or down 50-100BB's in one session, so a bad day for 5 consecutive days does not seem like the end of the world. You could easily win 300BB's by the end of the weekend and then it's only a 200BB downswing, which is nothing.
When you say that people don't appreciate how much luck is involved in poker, I don't know how to react. In a sense, I really don't feel that luck has a great deal to do with it over 200K hands or so. If, after 500K hands you are +1BB/hr , are you not satisfying the criteria for being a winning player? Maybe people understimate how hard it is to average over 1BB/hr after several hundred thousand hands.
Also, just think of how much worse of a downswing this would be if you didn't play well. Other players with your cards could have lost 1000BB's or more who knows.
|
Machinehead
old hand
Reged: 09/13/05
Posts: 1012
|
|
Every player has some leaks, even great players. You can minimize them, but nobody has 0 leaks in their game. There is no perfect poker player.
The hardest part about long losing stretches is staying consistant. I had 3 losing months last year and it was a combination of running bad and playing bad. In the end it taught me a lot about keeping my head straight when losing.
|
TheHip41
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 5237
Loc: Every other month TAG
|
|
I know how you feel Q. Going through the same stuff since the start of the year myself, just not as bad as yours. 12,000 hands at 2/4 -220BB
But luckily, my 2,000 hands at 5-10 this year, i'm up $800, so at least I'm almost even.
You know you are good, you know the rest of them suck, you will start winning a lot of money soon.
Seriously, how can someone not win at this game when players at 2/4 cap the flop, turn, and river on a bluff with KQo on a final board of
J944A
when I have JJ.
|
chief444
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/19/04
Posts: 5928
Loc: Edmonton
|
|
Quote:
I also decided to quit telling others about amazing 1 outer rivers and blind wars with 88 on 778 boards against 77 and the like.
"Others" thank you.
Nice post.
|
richerF1
journeyman
Reged: 11/23/05
Posts: 85
|
|
I appreciate that you share this experience with us. I posted a whiny post here a while ago after 20,000 hands break-even at 2/4. I can only imagine the degree of frustration you went through. Looks like you finally get back on track, good luck with the next 100k hands.
|
PokerBob
Daddy
Reged: 03/24/04
Posts: 17046
Loc: moneyhater
|
|
great post. poker is a bitch.
|
WalkAmongUs
old hand
Reged: 01/03/05
Posts: 1049
Loc: UB and FTP
|
|
I also came to Qtip's realization when I went on a 35k breakeven streak at 2/4 followed by a 10k 200BB downswing. I always have good table selection and I was noticing that I was always losing big pots and winning tiny ones.
I buckled down and studied and played through it and I am way up now but it sure was rough going.
|
pikkupossu
enthusiast
Reged: 10/25/05
Posts: 338
|
|
with posts like this, i am glad i have a day job.
worry not qtip! im sure you'll be outta this slump by the end of the month, it'll just be increased stress thats all. and im more than certain you got enough of that already running around the house 
|
bobbyi
Hero in a half shell
Reged: 11/14/03
Posts: 5833
Loc: Belittling Your Sample Size
|
|
I really like the book Zen and the Art of Poker . I've read a few times and each time something different from the book has really stood out and been on my mind for a while afterwards. The last time I read it (~ 1 year ago), it was the phrase "The long run is longer than you think". I realize now how true that is especially since this is my life so far at 10/20 (admittedly, this is shorthanded so a little different in terms of swings).
I think I'm really getting closer to the point where the swings just don't matter as much anymore. The main reason I used to care about my results is because I wanted to prove that I was a winning player. It was as if it was some sort of badge to have your PT results showing you as a 2 BB/100 winner or whatever. I wanted to believe that there was some magic threshold number of hands and once you've crossed that, your results would be "meaningful" and you would win however much you were "supposed to" win and you could hold that up and show everyone how great you are.
I understand now that that is [censored]. It's not about proving what your winrate is and it's not about beng entitled to win money because you worked hard. It's random. That's why it's gambling. You play your best and maybe you win and maybe you lose. Good players can lose a lot of money and bad players can win a lot of money. That's not just how poker works; it's how life works. You do the best you can and whatever happens happens. When your running good and flush with money, maybe move up. When you are getting pounded, move down. That's all that you can do. Worrying about it beyond that is a waste of time. I'm learning to let go and just play and not care about what my results mean. If you aren't able to do that, then IMO, you shouldn't try to reduce variance or increase your volume of play or anything else to make your results more meaningful; you should quit playing. Because it's gambling. And it's about variance. If you don't like gambling, then don't [censored] gamble.
Something else to think about: Vegas was built using the money people are willing to pay to buy variance. It is a hot ticket item. When you look at all the neon and crazy [censored], remember that the product that was sold to pay for it all is variance. And yet this is something we all get free of charge as a job (or hobby) benefit. I understand that people love to complain, so it's not suprising that people don't appreciate what they are being given here, but I do.
|
Flintoff
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/24/05
Posts: 2702
Loc: Melbourne
|
|
Ive had a 60000 breakeven stretch at 5-10 full. Ive also had a 370BB downswing. I mainly only play your day guys though as I live in the UK. I manage to take it for 0.8/100.
Im happy you have said this in a way QTIP because Ive seen talk on here where a 200BB loss means your game is in tatters!
Then again, I'm nowhere near as good as you so maybe I have worse to come!!!
|
Shillx
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/20/04
Posts: 10661
Loc: San Francisco
|
|
Good post Q.
I have always felt that luck is the biggest factor over just about all but the largest samples. After reading thousands of posts, I got the general impression that this board put luck on the back burner. Even more so when they were winning. Some of this is probably due to the lack of good luck this game has shown me, but some of it is still genuine. As some dude told me a while back
"I have never had a 200 BB downswing because I'm so good at poker."
And I told him
"You are so good at poker because you have never had a 200 BB downswing."
I have had a downswing of at least 500 BB before and many > 200 BB. One day I had 5 grand in my account and 3 weeks later it was gone. Then like a [censored] I put another grand in and lost that. So in total it was more like 600 BB but who's counting? I should also say that I probably was not a winner in the 5/10 then, though I didn't make it to the long run so it is tough to say. I'm probably not a winner now either though so it would be tough to be winning back then. Just to put things in perspective though, last week was the 1st time ever that I won outright at SD when I was freerolling someone (at least in recent memory, say 200k hands). After getting rolled all the time (and in very odd ways, like flopping top 2 and getting freerolled) it finally happened the other way. The odds against this have to be mind-numbingly high. I honestly though that it was never going to happen.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
I don't know bobbyi. I hear what you're saying, and I've read the "hopeless poker" ideals before. I'm not sure how pracitical is really is. I don't know. I made a post in the psychology forum when I was in this because I hated the fact that my emotions went up and down with my results. Smiley had to say that "we're only human". I see both sides of it. Poker seems like a special brand of emotional control and seeing things in a different light. I've always been good at controling my thoughts, and seeing things in a proper perspective, but poker seems like it's in a different category somewhere.
MM talks about (and DS somewhere I believe), smiling and saying "Nice Hand" to the guy that calls a cap with 26o and flops a straight. It's seeing the theory here that you outplayed him, despite the fact that he's raking in your chips. And then, after he hits 2 outers in three 25BB pots in a row to your monster hand, to still be able to smile and say "nice hand", takes an amazing understanding of the game. Those are the ones that really get me because big pots make such a huge difference in your results. Or, when a guy 3 bets you with his 3 outer on the turn, and then catches and rubs it in your face, 3 consecutive times, to understand that you really nailed him there getting 3 bets in on the turn with 91% equity. It's just hard to keep that in the forefront. Results, results, results, they get in the way, yet, in the end, it's what the pro is after...the poker paradox.
Anyway, one of my friends reminded me that dealing with these things (whatever the source), is another poker skill that needs to be developed.
I did notice ,though, that just setting a goal for # of hands played really helped. Another one of my friends always says "more poker is +EV". So, I grind away.
Anyway, good thoughts, shillx and everyone else, I'm glad the OP was helpful to some.
|
W. Deranged
posts better than he plays
Reged: 06/17/04
Posts: 5368
Loc: Macro Miserable
|
|
All I have to say is "Bravo."
This is a great post, Q. I still get demoralized by two or three day downswings. Your clarity of thought and honesty is very helpful to me.
|
caz
addict
Reged: 09/13/05
Posts: 634
|
|
Wow. Great Post QTip. It couldn't of come at a better time as I lost 50BB today. It's clearly no where near as severe as a 500BB streak, but I am still not use to losing $200 from my bankroll.
|
SackUp
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/08/04
Posts: 6580
Loc: Undefeated as a Lawyer!
|
|
yeah variance is a biatch!
|
Zeki
journeyman
Reged: 10/01/05
Posts: 89
Loc: Toronto, Canada
|
|
I read a lot, but rarely post, and I really enjoyed this one
|
Black Aces 518
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 10/22/04
Posts: 1752
Loc: play bad, run bad
|
|
Quote:
I know how you feel Q. Going through the same stuff since the start of the year myself, just not as bad as yours. 12,000 hands at 2/4 -220BB
But luckily, my 2,000 hands at 5-10 this year, i'm up $800, so at least I'm almost even.
You know you are good, you know the rest of them suck, you will start winning a lot of money soon.
Seriously, how can someone not win at this game when players at 2/4 cap the flop, turn, and river on a bluff with KQo on a final board of
J944A
when I have JJ.
long long freaking stretchs of turns not pairing the board and river tens
|
feelixthegreek
addict
Reged: 07/18/04
Posts: 590
Loc: 9th Ward
|
|
I've just recently staggered back from a 200BB drop at 2/4, and I agree it was the cracked sets that hurt the most. And I was foolish enough after 20,000 hands to think my bankroll was safely at cruising altitude.
|
I_C_ALL
member
Reged: 01/08/06
Posts: 182
|
|
172BB downswing lasting 2 months. Also at 2/4. If I have your luck, I'm half way through it. Thanks for post. This was exactly what I was looking for...
|
squeek12
old hand
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 978
Loc: I believe
|
|
Theoretically, if you're a 2BB/100 winner and you run at 0BB/100 for ~100K hands, then sooner or later there should be a 4BB/100, 100K hand stretch out there waiting for you. Just think of how great that'll be when you finally get there.
|
Harv72b
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 6830
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
|
Variance sucks. My breakeven stretch has now extended to 13k hands during this month, and it's getting more and more frustrating (I'm actually 1 SB in the red over that span). I'm in a good mood now, not because I logged a winning session (dropped 3 BBs tonight in ~500 hands), but because I rebounded from an initial 40 BB loss to "only" lose 3. So I can totally relate to the bad beats and the frustration, and I'm very thankful that I started the month with a 500 BB bankroll. Of course, the plan was to build that up to a 300 BB bankroll for 10/20 and make the move up this month, but that's life.
I just wanted to stress something, though. It's not all variance, definitely not in my case and probably not in anyone's. When the losing sessions start piling up, or even just when the winning sessions don't come as often, it's very easy to start pressing, which in turn leads to mistakes. It's also easy to try to make up reasons to get to a showdown when you should know your hand isn't good; I'm very sure that my own poor play has cost me at least 1 BB/100 over the aforementioned stretch. This is a hand from tonight's session, in which I otherwise felt that I played quite well:
Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx
Preflop: Hero is SB with A , Q.
6 folds, CO calls, Button raises, Hero calls, BB calls, CO calls.
Flop: (8 SB) Q , 3 , 3 (4 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, CO bets, Button folds, Hero calls, BB folds.
Turn: (5 BB) 5 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero raises, CO 3-bets, Hero calls.
River: (11 BB) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero calls.
Final Pot: 13 BB
Main Pot: 13 BB, between Hero and CO.
And of course, this looks pretty standard--you could argue for a preflop 3-bet, but I had just 3-bet this raiser two hands before, which he gave up on the turn. I felt that by mixing up my play here I'd actually gain more folding equity postflop if I didn't hit, but anyway that's not the issue because I obviously did. Here's why I hate my play in tihs hand:
CO is 35/5/0.6 over a 150 hand sample. My notes on him specifically say "will not raise on the late streets without something damn close to the nuts". They also say that he'll lead into a PFR on a paired flop with any pocket pair, but will slowplay flopped monsters til the river. Which should have allowed me to put two & two together and figure out what he rather obviously had to have in this hand, but instead I decided to call down and lose 2 extra BBs. Incidentally, the turn c/r is because he would happily have called down with any underpair or worse queen no matter what I did.
When I'm running well and not feeling the pressure to "make up" for losses or unsatisfactory winnings, I make this fold on the turn. When I'm not, I find an excuse to call down and lose extra bets, or to make some goofy turn move against an opponent or on a board where I have zero folding equity. Little mistakes like that do add up.
|
Harv72b
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 6830
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
|
Quote:
Theoretically, if you're a 2BB/100 winner and you run at 0BB/100 for ~100K hands, then sooner or later there should be a 4BB/100, 100K hand stretch out there waiting for you. Just think of how great that'll be when you finally get there.
This is a common misconception. If you are a proven 2 BB/100 winner and run at 0/100 for 100k hands, your expectancy for the next 100k hands and all hands in the future will still be 2 BB/100.
|
dark_horse
veteran
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 1236
Loc: NYC
|
|
Quote:
When I'm running well and not feeling the pressure to "make up" for losses or unsatisfactory winnings, I make this fold on the turn. When I'm not, I find an excuse to call down and lose extra bets, or to make some goofy turn move against an opponent or on a board where I have zero folding equity. Little mistakes like that do add up.
This is huge.
|
dark_horse
veteran
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 1236
Loc: NYC
|
|
Great post QTip. I've created a bookmarks subfolder in my 2+2 folder for good "running bad" posts and this is the first entry. When I'm depressed and feeling dejected, I'll take breaks to read these threads and I'm sure it will help my play and my psyche.
One question, though. I noticed you are playing 2/4 and 5/10. Why no 3/6?
|
squeek12
old hand
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 978
Loc: I believe
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Theoretically, if you're a 2BB/100 winner and you run at 0BB/100 for ~100K hands, then sooner or later there should be a 4BB/100, 100K hand stretch out there waiting for you. Just think of how great that'll be when you finally get there.
This is a common misconception. If you are a proven 2 BB/100 winner and run at 0/100 for 100k hands, your expectancy for the next 100k hands and all hands in the future will still be 2 BB/100.
I understand what you are saying, but I'm talking variance. His expectancy is 2BB/100, but it seems to me that 100K hand stretches of 4BB/100 are equally as likely as stretches of 100K hands break even. In other words, if his true winrate is 2, then there must be a correcting 4BB/100 upswing to accompany his downswing.
But I agree with you that his expectancy remains 2BB/100 through both the downswing and upswing.
|
Catt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 3239
|
|
Quote:
In other words, if his true winrate is 2, then there must be a correcting 4BB/100 upswing to accompany his downswing.
No. There are no corrections due for anything.
|
Dhani
addict
Reged: 06/19/05
Posts: 618
Loc: Midwest
|
|
What do you think is a good win rate for a $2-$4 full ring game multi tabling (2-3 tables at a time)? Do you think it's realistic to make 2 BB/hr at each table?
|
MCS
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/04/02
Posts: 5447
Loc: Brooklyn! What!
|
|
squeek12, that is not true. It's like if you were flipping a coin. Long-term, you have an expectation of 50% heads. So imagine you flipped a coin and it came up tails 10 times in a row. How many heads do you expect in the next 10 flips?
(hint: 5 )
|
Akimka
addict
Reged: 05/14/04
Posts: 647
Loc: Russia
|
|
Wow. It's looks just like my story. What I want to ask - don't you think Q that 2/4-3/6 games became more tougher nowadays than they was year before? What do you think about changes on SS levels on party?
|
bobhalford
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/06/05
Posts: 2519
|
|
Tiltblocker anyone? I never know how bad or well I'm running while I'm playing and it's a great thing!
I think losing or breaking even after 20-30K hands is no big deal. If you look at a good stock, like RIO for example (I made bank on this play...bought in @ $25), it will run hot, cold, and breakeven for periods of time. When it doesn't budge for a couple weeks, or drops a few points, I'm not too concerned about it. It's a solid company and should increase in value. As poker players, we have to see a bad month as just that - a blip in time in our poker lives. If we are doing all the right things (using our good reads, table selecting, understanding how our opponents perceive us, etc.) we should not have any problems. The money will come.
|
squeek12
old hand
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 978
Loc: I believe
|
|
Quote:
squeek12, that is not true. It's like if you were flipping a coin. Long-term, you have an expectation of 50% heads. So imagine you flipped a coin and it came up tails 10 times in a row. How many heads do you expect in the next 10 flips?
(hint: 5 )
I get this people, but it is equally as likely to flip tails 10 times in a row as heads...that's all I'm trying to say. So he is just as likely to run at 4BB/100 as he is to run at 0. Get what I'm trying to say now?
|
squeek12
old hand
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 978
Loc: I believe
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In other words, if his true winrate is 2, then there must be a correcting 4BB/100 upswing to accompany his downswing.
No. There are no corrections due for anything.
Maybe I worded this wrong, but I still stand by my thoughts. Someone brought up a good analogy. If you flip a coin 10 times, your expectancy is 5 heads and 5 tails. But flipping heads all ten times is possible. You still expect 5 heads next time. I get this!
But flipping ten heads in a row (running at 0 BB) is no more likely than flipping ten tails in a row (running at 4BB). They have the same probability. Just like it's just as probable that a player with a 2BB winrate will run at 0BB for 100k hands as it is that he will run at 4BB over the same number of hands.
|
Harv72b
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 6830
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
|
Quote:
But flipping ten heads in a row (running at 0 BB) is no more likely than flipping ten tails in a row (running at 4BB). They have the same probability. Just like it's just as probable that a player with a 2BB winrate will run at 0BB for 100k hands as it is that he will run at 4BB over the same number of hands.
The odds of either happening are indeed the same: extremely unlikely. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the player will run at 4 BB/100 over his next 100k hands, or over any 100k hand period for that matter. Moreso, it is equally (un)likely that the player will run at 0 BB/100 over his next 100k hands. Each sample is entirely independent of any others. I think you understand this, but your initial statement did/does not reflect that.
I think a better analogy would be if you were dealt pocket aces two times in a row. Your odds of being dealt pocket aces on the next hand would be precisely what they were on either of the other two: 220:1 against. The fact that you were dealt aces the prior two hands has no influence whatsoever on the third hand.
|
squeek12
old hand
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 978
Loc: I believe
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But flipping ten heads in a row (running at 0 BB) is no more likely than flipping ten tails in a row (running at 4BB). They have the same probability. Just like it's just as probable that a player with a 2BB winrate will run at 0BB for 100k hands as it is that he will run at 4BB over the same number of hands.
The odds of either happening are indeed the same: extremely unlikely. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the player will run at 4 BB/100 over his next 100k hands, or over any 100k hand period for that matter. Moreso, it is equally (un)likely that the player will run at 0 BB/100 over his next 100k hands. Each sample is entirely independent of any others. I think you understand this, but your initial statement did/does not reflect that.
I think a better analogy would be if you were dealt pocket aces two times in a row. Your odds of being dealt pocket aces on the next hand would be precisely what they were on either of the other two: 220:1 against. The fact that you were dealt aces the prior two hands has no influence whatsoever on the third hand.
I didn't mean that his next 100K hands would automatically be 4BB/100. I just meant that this evil run has a good twin somewhere out there, and that if he plays long enough he'll most likely run very hot for very long time, if not 4BB/100.
BTW, during my Katrina displacement, I was a substitute teacher and taught probabilility to a 7th grade math class and nearly pulled out my hair trying to get them to understand the concept that you all thought I didn't understand.
|
Bobb
*
Reged: 08/19/05
Posts: 507
Loc: Essess!
|
|
Isn't 100k enough of a sample size to prove your winrate? So if you played 100k hands and broke even, wouldn't that have been your true winrate, or maybe due to table selection or something else? When does it start not being variance and being the player?
|
MCS
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/04/02
Posts: 5447
Loc: Brooklyn! What!
|
|
Quote:
if he plays long enough he'll most likely run very hot for very long time, if not 4BB/100.
Correct, but sadly, the evil twin ALSO has an evil cousin, and it is fairly likely that he will run cold for a very long time too. Now me, I have to run hot just to make 0BB/100.
P.S. Yes, it is clear now that you understand the concept of independent trials.
|
Nomad84
veteran
Reged: 03/06/05
Posts: 1246
Loc: moving soon
|
|
Quote:
Isn't 100k enough of a sample size to prove your winrate? So if you played 100k hands and broke even, wouldn't that have been your true winrate, or maybe due to table selection or something else? When does it start not being variance and being the player?
I think you missed the whole point of this post. Qtip is a winner over several hundred thousand hands, but he still suffered a statistically rare 95000 hand breakeven stretch. So while 100k hands can give you a good idea of your true winrate, you will never know the exact number. There will always be uncertainty associated with your winrate, so confidence intervals are important to consider. You also mentioned table selection, etc. Because of this and other factors, your "true" winrate will be different for every table you play.
Qtip, thanks for the post. It helps drive home just how little the results really matter, even over what most of us would consider large samples.
|
Hoi Polloi
*
Reged: 11/23/04
Posts: 2049
Loc: workin' the variance bell curv...
|
|
Hang in there Q. I've been fighting the good fight on the 5/10 tables and they are a bitch.
Since I'm not working from home these days I'm playing less but playing nights and weekends. That certainly helps.
|
NSchandler
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 1632
|
|
All squeek is saying is that if somebody's "true" winrate is 2BB/100, then 4BB/100 streaks should be as common as breakeven streaks (assuming the distribution is symmetric).
I don't think anybody's saying that QTip should expect a 4BB/100 streak over 100K hands anytime soon - but the fact that he experienced a 100K breakeven streak indicates that 4BB/100 streaks over 100K hands are at least possible since they should be as common as 100K breakeven streaks with a "true" winrate of 2BB/100 (and, again, symmetric distributions).
|
TheHip41
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 5237
Loc: Every other month TAG
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't 100k enough of a sample size to prove your winrate? So if you played 100k hands and broke even, wouldn't that have been your true winrate, or maybe due to table selection or something else? When does it start not being variance and being the player?
I think you missed the whole point of this post. Qtip is a winner over several hundred thousand hands, but he still suffered a statistically rare 95000 hand breakeven stretch. So while 100k hands can give you a good idea of your true winrate, you will never know the exact number. There will always be uncertainty associated with your winrate, so confidence intervals are important to consider. You also mentioned table selection, etc. Because of this and other factors, your "true" winrate will be different for every table you play.
Qtip, thanks for the post. It helps drive home just how little the results really matter, even over what most of us would consider large samples.
Maybe all these donkeys raising the turn with no pair no draw against the TAGs are on to a winning strategy. I swear, people with the passive stats are doing it as well.
I have Ak, flop is A44, guy bet/3bets the turn with T2.
As for someone's comment, the game is definitely harder, but it's very beatable.
|
Catt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 3239
|
|
I hate to derail Qtip's valuable thread with this, but whether or not he is equally likely to run at 4 or 0 BB for some period of hands has nothing to do with how likely he is to do so (either way) after a streaky run earlier in the sample. To use the coin flip analogy, if he flips heads 50 times in a row (and its a true coin), there is nothing that precludes him from flipping heads 50 more times in a row, and certainly nothing that indicates that he'll likely encounter a series of flips that involves 50+ advantage to tails. He might flip 50 heads in a row and then flip 100,000 times with a perfect 50/50 split. In that case, heads are coming up 50,050 versus 50,000 tails -- for a "flip heads" percentage of 50.025%, close to the expected outcome -- and yet there never was a "correcting" streak of tails to accompany to the unexpected streak of heads. You may well understand this completely; but anytime anyone uses any variation of "there must be a correcting streak" argument, I presume (and will continue to presume) that the person doesn't, in fact, understand variance at the most basic level.
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
Interesting:
I was looking at some things on the 25k stretch at 2/4. I couldn't get the 25k hands to come up with a 380BB downswing in PT. It just showed up in poker patterns chart. Then, I started thinking "Man, what if this was only 200 or something." I though of how embarassing that would be at this point.
However, the reason was that one of the streches was inside of a day. It turns out that over like 2100 hands, I lost about 240BBs, truly an amazing dive.
I'm going to pull this section of hands out, and look at them. I may end up hosting the text file of those 2100 hands if someone would find it valuable.
We'll see...
|
dark_horse
veteran
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 1236
Loc: NYC
|
|
Quote:
Interesting:
I was looking at some things on the 25k stretch at 2/4. I couldn't get the 25k hands to come up with a 380BB downswing in PT. It just showed up in poker patterns chart. Then, I started thinking "Man, what if this was only 200 or something." I though of how embarassing that would be at this point.
However, the reason was that one of the streches was inside of a day. It turns out that over like 2100 hands, I lost about 240BBs, truly an amazing dive.
I'm going to pull this section of hands out, and look at them. I may end up hosting the text file of those 2100 hands if someone would find it valuable.
We'll see...
I'm sure it's just insanely horrible luck, but I wouldn't mind looking through it, if for nothing else than to see how another solid player plays.
|
Catt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/12/05
Posts: 3239
|
|
Quote:
Interesting:
I was looking at some things on the 25k stretch at 2/4. I couldn't get the 25k hands to come up with a 380BB downswing in PT. It just showed up in poker patterns chart. Then, I started thinking "Man, what if this was only 200 or something." I though of how embarassing that would be at this point.
However, the reason was that one of the streches was inside of a day. It turns out that over like 2100 hands, I lost about 240BBs, truly an amazing dive.
I'm going to pull this section of hands out, and look at them. I may end up hosting the text file of those 2100 hands if someone would find it valuable.
We'll see...
QTip - check out this thread in SS HUSH. I dropped 250 BBs in like 1500 hands; bottomed out at -300 BBs in about 2500 hands; and then hit a huge heater that brought me back to an overall +2.3 BB/100 over the course of ~7000 hands. At the request of another poster I posted generic summary stats during the downswing and upswing, and the stats yield no clues as to different approaches to the game (nor did my own review of the play of the hands) -- the stats and reviews merely revealed how much hitting flops or making the best hand against a second best hand is a lot cooler than missing flops and hitting a second best hand against a best hand is. The swings can be intense, even when playing well; and the hardest to handle (for me) are the extended streaks of breakeven results, whether comprised of swings up and down or a steady drumbeat of small wins and small losses. It sounds like you hit an extended streak of non-movement with a few terrifying plunges thrown in for excitement. Seems like fun but I can't say I wish I was there.
|
Guruman
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/24/05
Posts: 3704
Loc: still a NL fish - so lay off!
|
|
some people still have such startling misconceptions about what winrate represents. Winrate is nothing more than a rough blurry record of a person's relative poker ability, weighted upwards over time as we learn more absolute poker skill, and randomized by variance.
There is no such thing as a pure 2bb/100 $5-10 winner. There is only a relative edge based on the mistakes made by the opposition that one choses to sit in against. if I play 5/10, my winrate will swing wildly as better and worse opponents shuffle in and out of my tables. I'll be a big loser vs Sklansky, Malmuth, Miller, Lederer, Tran, and Negranu at 5/10, and a big winner vs my immediate family. The limit is nothing, the opposition is everything, and the winrate is only a record of one's relative edge.
It's not an absolute measure of poker skill. Its a record of our edge in the games that we've actually played (weighted upwards for learning and randomized for variance)
see this thread for a deeper discussion on this.
|
NSchandler
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/27/05
Posts: 1632
|
|
I agree 100% Guruman, which is why I put "true" winrate in parentheses.
|
Misja
enthusiast
Reged: 07/27/05
Posts: 227
|
|
Great post.
I am using the program StatKing to keep track of my wins and losses. It contains a feature that tells you how reliable your hourly winrate is, based on the variance of your gametype and the number of sessions you have played. I have now played almost 20.000 5/10 hands, and still it says that there's only 36% chance that my winrate is accurate within $5 per hour. The swings in this game are just awful ..
|
Poet MP
addict
Reged: 08/20/05
Posts: 478
Loc: London, UK
|
|
I feel for you, truly. I was making over 2BB/100 over my first 35k hands at 2/4 (and just under that for 56k hands at 1/2, which included learning and moving from playing 1 to 8 tables), and now I'm about breakeven for my last 25k. The horror of the beats taken has left me totally in awe of just how bad AND lucky some people are. But, after all that, your post just puts into perspective how truly pathetically small my sample size is, and just how bad it can get.
Great post QTip. While I hate that there are some great players out there taking a pounding, it gives us lesser players some comfort that, at the very least, it happens to the best of us.
|
Lost Wages
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 2725
Loc: My Lab
|
|
Sorry to hear about the run of bad luck. It has certainly been shown that such streaks are possible for a winning player. I suspect that most such streaks go unreported. If you have not read "Gambling Threory and Other Topics", this would be a good time to pick it up.
Quote:
I'm am now pulling out of a 485 BB downswing.
This statement concerns me somewhat, if it's what you really meant to say. Streaks, whether up or down, can only be described in past tense. You cannot say you are "in" a streak, nor can you say you are "pulling out of" or "going into" a streak.
Lost Wages
|
QTip
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/23/04
Posts: 6131
Loc: OH
|
|
Lost Wages:
Yes, I understand that. Thanks for making sure though. I've not read that, and have meant to for some time. I need to grab a copy.
|
flair1239
star
Reged: 07/12/04
Posts: 2584
Loc: Lindstrom, MN
|
|
Yeah... what you said
web page
|
BigBrother
addict
Reged: 04/28/05
Posts: 484
Loc: BigBrother is watching ME
|
|
Another great post from QTIP that shows his dedication to and understanding of the game. Sorry to hear of your disastrous run.
One thing that is certain:
Edge in the PP 2/4-5/10 games has dropped dramatically over the last 6-12 months (and will probably continue to drop). It's just too easy for some kid to sit down at his PC,learn the basics of this game, deposit $1000 and start competing.
Many may disagree with me on this, but I really see that certain days/times it is MUCH harder to find great tables than others, where before you could pretty much log in at any time and find a few really juicy tables.
Reduced edge means you will feel the pain of variance much more severely. You will lose more BB on your second-best hands and you will not get paid as much on your monsters.
The rake is going down the hole at a constant rate, and the FTOP errors need to be great enough to keep chips floating around on top of the table.
How to deal with it? Depends on each person's situation I think.
One approach is to move up to higher games, where you can play fewer hours, fewer tables, and use your skills to grind out an enviable hourly rate. Of course your bankroll requirements will be huge and you will experience a higher risk of ruin. But you have the opportunity to use your refined poker skills and keep challenging yourself to improve your game.
One approach is to move down and play softer games where you can comfortably grind out a +2-3BB/100 winrate just relentlessly value-betting. Lower BR requirement and very low risk, but possibly tedious, boring, physically and mentally draining for an unacceptably low hourly return.
Another approach is to mix it up and play different games. Try some shorthanded play, NL, Omaha, tournaments, get out to the live B&M games. You put yourself back onto the steeper slope of the learning curve, which can be mentally more stimulating. The added experience and fresh perspective can put a renewed kick into your regular game. You get back to playing 'thinking' poker instead of the rote, 'video game' of multi-tabling. In this case you will be using the skills you have developed playing SS limit to find good tables, and to sharpen you edge at the new games. Of coures you will also find yourself up against those who are more experienced at that particular game than you...but you can learn from them to 'catch-up'.
This is a SS limit forum, and I am not anywhere close to saying that I think SS limit is dead, just that we are all seeing these downswings and it's not all because lady luck has decided to stick us with the variance. If we have found an 'easy formula' to succees, it is only a matter of time before more people clue in to that formula, and we must evolve to keep our edge.
Myself, I have been getting out and playing more B&M. Easy for me because I live in an area where there are tons of profitable cardrooms (now non-smoking!). But hard for me because it is time-consuming and doesn't fit well into my family-life. I have also played a bit of Short-handed online, and that experience has led me to clean up in my B&M sessions where the table has gone short and a couple of fish did not know how to adjust their game.
I have played a few profitable sessions of low-stakes NL, and I'm considering doing a bit more of that. I've played a few SNG's with basically break-even results. I've dabbled in Omaha enough to realize I'm not doing so well, but not doing terribly. I realize I am in danger of diluting my energies too much so I'm going to decide on one main 'secondary' poker activity at a time and focus on it for a while.
It is part of keeping my New Year's resolution to "Only play my A-game" and stop butting heads at a bad table when I recognize that either the table is not profitable enough or that I am not playing well enough. For me, keeping myself off tilt is helping me control my BR downswings.
|
Harv72b
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 6830
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
|
Quote:
Edge in the PP 2/4-5/10 games has dropped dramatically over the last 6-12 months (and will probably continue to drop). It's just too easy for some kid to sit down at his PC,learn the basics of this game, deposit $1000 and start competing.
There are literally a bazillion (trust me, I counted) books on poker out there. The quality of their advice varies widely, but they all teach some form of tight hold 'em play, which when followed, will at least keep an otherwise terrible player out of too much trouble. Which in turn means that we'll see fewer & fewer of the 60+ VPIP donks, and more of the weak/tight 20- VPIP donks. Of course you can still win money from them, but it's more difficult to do and will necessarily take longer (unless you luck into a short-handed or HU situation). Now throw in things like instructional DVDs & the various offline computer poker games, for those who don't like intellectual pursuits like readin', and you can see that it's bound to get tougher. Particularly in the small stakes, where we play, as it's invariably where these beginning weak/tighties end up after enjoying some success at .50/1 & below.
Quote:
I've dabbled in Omaha enough to realize I'm not doing so well, but not doing terribly.
I couldn't agree more with your point about mixing up your game. I like to play the odd MTT or SnG every so often to break the tedium of LHE, but Omaha in particular I've found to be a ridiculously beatable game (at the micro limits). When Empire was still a Party skin I had a a few hundred bucks in there just for O8, and using nothing more than what I learned from reading the Omaha forum on here & the chapter on O8 in SS2, I was beating the game for a way higher WR than I could ever dream of sustaining in LHE. Going back to my point above, there are far fewer instructional tools out there for Omaha, and very few televised Omaha tournaments to drum up interest, which makes for far fewer players who have even the slightest clue what they're doing. If it ever gets to the point where I feel I can't beat LHE for a good enough rate anymore, I will switch over to O8 in a heartbeat. But for the time being I don't feel it's worth diverting my energy towards improving my O8 game enough to play at the true small stakes limits...but it is a great change of pace game.
|
Perseus
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/15/04
Posts: 2038
Loc: Doing the HUSnG thing
|
|
I'm posting blind so some or all of this might have been covered. If that's the case I apologize in advance.
Another factor people who play low limit poker need to consider is the % of rake compared to the size of the pot. There is a reason that games below 6/12 aren't beatable at a casino. There are also reasons why more and more people are experiencing severe downswings at full ring and SH limit games 5/10 and below.
I played 2/4 and 3/6 for a year of my life and the games have gotten a little tighter each month. The rake, on party at least, has also risen. When they pumped up the rake a bunch of months ago there was very little outcry, but I'm sure it had a substantial impact on the winrate of the low limit players.
Part of the reason I am doing this 100k in 6 month quest I am updating in the general forum is because of the deteriorating rate of the small stakes games, and I knew if I was going to move up it was now or never.
The 15/30 games and higher will ALWAYS have wealthy people with money with no real desire to make a decent profit. Think about the people who sit in the 15/30 games you want to play against...people with enough money to lose a 500 dollar buy in and not worry. They aren't thinking "I need 9,000 to play this game at all!" they are thinking "500 bucks is more than double the min buy in...looks good to me"
Now look who is playing the 2/4 games and below. College students who can't afford to lose a lot of money but are smart enough to study the game. Online 8 tabling grinders trying to make a decent profit on a consistent basis. There aren't many more people watching TV and saying to themselves "Ohh this poker thing sounds neat I should try it, let me deposit 200 and play 2/4" The majority of new players either have no money and are playing micro's, or they have lots of money and will sit at 15/30.
That said, there can still be a profit made at the small stakes, it's just harder. A year ago I could load up the first 8 tables I saw and play 2bb/100 poker while surfing the net AND playing Tiger Woods golf (true story). Now I have to practice proper table selection, reduce the number of games I'm playing, and keep updated buddy lists. Personally, I don't have the patience to do this at 2/4 and play for many more hours a day to make up for the reduced number of hands I'm getting in.
Again, the small stakes games ARE beatable for a decent profit but people playing those games for a living have to start making the proper adjustments. In a years time ABC poker will be a thing of the past. For those of you thinking "I can still get away with ABC poker, this Perseus doesn't know what he is talking about", then OK...play ABC poker until your eyes burn out and never gain the ability to move up. For those of you like Q-tip who are excellent players grinding it out and trying to make it by, I suggest trying to move up as soon as you can.
Q-Tips post should be a wake-up call that the small stakes games are only going to get tougher, so as professional players we better keep improving before we get left behind.
To end I'm going to say this...luck also plays a much bigger role than people think. I found a post on FTR today that included something by GoT, located about running simulations of a poker player with a standard deviation of almost 17 and a winrate of 1.8. Scroll down about halfway through the post and you'll see what I'm talking about. After 100k hand samples run 100 times a players bb/100 winrate can extend from .5bb/100 to 3.5bb/100. Even after the million hands run the players true winrate didn't yet match the 1.8bb/100 (it came to 1.95bb/100).
Luck plays a much bigger part than we think, and in not my own words, the long run is longer than you think.
-Jon
|
Misja
enthusiast
Reged: 07/27/05
Posts: 227
|
|
I agree with your advice to play different games. I had a bad streak half a year ago playing 2-4 and 3-6. I finally got out of it by playing 5-10 and 15-30 and playing only 1 or 2 tables instead of the 3 tables I played before. The most important thing that happened to me is that this brought back my fun and interest in the game. I now think this is crucial. When you enjoy playing, you are more alert and more creative, which both are of course +EV
|
KingOtter
Meddling Old Fart
Reged: 12/12/04
Posts: 3761
Loc: NL25 6-max
|
|
I'm not a pro... never played higher than 1/2, but I can empathize.
I've always been pretty understanding of downswing posts. I've never really been enough of a luck-box and my poker winnings have gone up and down quite regularly.
Last October-ish sometime I started on a downturn and it almost broke my spirit. I don't even know how many BB's it turned out being... but I'm only just getting back into playing regularly again.
I still read... still bought poker mags... still watched poker on TV... still dabbled here and there, but never even enough to earn a bonus. Kept my feet in it but my heart was definitely elsewhere.
So I'm back at .50/1 again, working my way back up. But I'm playing regularly again. Getting back into it.
I couldn't imagine going through that being a pro.
KO
|
Spy Dog
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/13/04
Posts: 5193
Loc: Beer tastes good
|
|
I find it odd that you haven't ventured into shorthanded play by now. I used to post in this forum frequently about a year ago when PP had no 3/6 6max. The 3/6 games were pretty good back then with an ASF of 31% during European daytime hours. I recently played about 4k hands of 2/4 at PP where the ASF is about 29%. While easily beatable, these games are getting tougher and tougher. Meanwhile the 3/6 6max games are still fairly easy. There really is no excuse for you not to be playing at least 25% of your hands at 6-max tables. With bonus and rakeback deals at other sites, playing 6-max can be relatively low risk, too. Especially if you are willing to play a level above the bonus whores (usually 3/6 or 5/10).
Sorry about your downswing, though. I just wish we would see you begin posting in the SSSH forum.
|
krimson
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 1792
Loc: breaking mice
|
|
I empathize QTip. I am currently at the bottom end of a 250BB downswing. I was doing quite well up until this point over a fairly large sample, so I still have some shreds of confidence in my abilities. Overall this is an extremely demoralizing experience. I don't rely on poker for income so it became extremely difficult to play as fear of losing developed. I have barely played any poker in the past month. After a 3 week break I came back to another 2 losing sessions. Fabulous.
I plan to work through this by dropping down to 2/4 on Party, which seems like a common move. Luckily I keep a heavy duty bankroll which definitely made this downswing a bit easier to endure. I cashed out half my bankroll in december to avoid any stupid mistakes and am still adequately rolled for upto 10/20.
The hard part is shaking off the concepts of "luck". Every time I play I feel like it's time for things to turn around. This is of course non-sense. Nothing that's happened up until now means anything for tomorrow, variance has no boundaries.
I guess this is a learning experience. I can say for sure I won't be jilted by a 50BB downswing ever again.
|
thelyingthief
enthusiast
Reged: 09/02/05
Posts: 375
|
|
the question i would like to pose to each of the respondents is:
given the incidence and the nature of these downswings, do you continue to pursue the same strategy (markedly aggressive), or have you considered re-valuating the approach?
portfolio theory suggests a blend of investment vehicles to smooth the volatility inherent in any one of them; and the reason is NOT to ameliorate one's emotional responses to swings, but because A LESS VOLATILE LOWER EXPECTATION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPERFORM A MORE VOLATILE ALTHOUGH GREATER EXPECTATION over a lengthy period of time.
i am fairly new to this game, with around 60k of hands at low limits; yet i already see how dangerous the application of this aggressive philosophy is to one's bankroll growth, and the necessity to forego an ostensibly higher expectation in favor of one more reduced BECAUSE MY VOLATILITY is thereby controlled.
|
TheHip41
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 5237
Loc: Every other month TAG
|
|
Quote:
the question i would like to pose to each of the respondents is:
given the incidence and the nature of these downswings, do you continue to pursue the same strategy (markedly aggressive), or have you considered re-valuating the approach?
portfolio theory suggests a blend of investment vehicles to smooth the volatility inherent in any one of them; and the reason is NOT to ameliorate one's emotional responses to swings, but because A LESS VOLATILE LOWER EXPECTATION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPERFORM A MORE VOLATILE ALTHOUGH GREATER EXPECTATION over a lengthy period of time.
i am fairly new to this game, with around 60k of hands at low limits; yet i already see how dangerous the application of this aggressive philosophy is to one's bankroll growth, and the necessity to forego an ostensibly higher expectation in favor of one more reduced BECAUSE MY VOLATILITY is thereby controlled.
No, I continue to be aggressive because the donkeys will call with anything.
What can you do when you raise pf with AA-QQ, get 5 callers.
flop is 773 i bet, insta raise, 4 folds, i 3bet, insta call
turn 4
i bet, he raises, i call
river x i c/c
he has 44
repeat 30,000 times.
By being a pussy and just calling the flop, and checking the turn, I lose so much value, and I can't protect my hand when I am ahead. I just keep pumping my hands the same way I always do, and in the end, the $$$$ gets there.
|
Harv72b
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 6830
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
|
Quote:
What can you do when you raise pf with AA-QQ, get 5 callers.
flop is 773 i bet, insta raise, 4 folds, i 3bet, insta call
turn 4
i bet, he raises, i call
river x i c/c
he has 44
Agree with your point. I just wanted to say that, with the exception of coldcalling second in with 44 (unless the table was really loose), I play this hand the same way he does.
|
thelyingthief
enthusiast
Reged: 09/02/05
Posts: 375
|
|
i didnt know it was about being most or least pussy, but which strategy is most likely to maximize my gain.
setting aside AA/KK, which are everybodies' moneymakers, and can hardly be played inaccurately, whatever you do.
AK pocket, EP: raising AK does not drive out many opponents, or it drives out nearly all opponents. taking the first case, i have attracted more flies than waved them away, so i have not raised for protection, but value. If I stay the river, I will win, what, 1 in 3. However, I flop nothing > 2/3rds the time--and all those callers have live hands. So, two thirds of the time I will lose my raised bet, and 1/3 of the time I will win my raise. For brevity, I elide bluffs and such. If I miss my flop, I remain with a weak draw, and nearly everybody knows it. Or, I flop strong, and everybody well knows my hand was helped. I either have, therefore, substantial equity or little. However, the greater my equity, the more apparent it is; consequently, drawing hands fold, or they limp. Thus the deeper I proceed into the hand the fewer the calls I will have, and the smaller the realization of my overall equity becomes. Obviously, the opposite results when you miss the flop; and the consequence is, you will make less money on your AK when it hits than OTHERS will make when it doesn't. This process can be fairly generalized to encompass most starting hands played by tight players. They realize less return on greater equity. And volatility will absolutely wreak havoc with that situation.
But say the hoped for result arises, and everybody folds. Great, you've knocked out the blinds. Or, you have one or two opponents who reraise. Now that equity shrinks significantly just from the nature of the responses. You're facing drawing hands--AK is a draw--probably your equal (you will split the pot), or you're facing made hands.
But made hands will ram a poor flop down your throat, or will relinquish against a great flop. Sound familiar? Again, you're involved in an inverse reciprocity: the greater your equity, the more circumscribed your probable gain.
Of course, I understand that, by raising every hand you play you will avoid some of this, because your opponents will have difficulty putting you on a hand, blah, blah, blah. But this also entails REDEFINING THE STARTING HAND REQUIREMENTS; and consequently, redefines THE AMOUNT OF EQUITY EACH HAND REPRESENTS.
The fact of the matter is, the longer you play, and the more experienced and cognizant your opponents, the more subject you are to diminishing returns. And web based play, involving as it does a relatively small number of tells and reads, is going to or IS now experiencing a natural diminution of value as the number of cognoscenti rises.
The strategy to increase, not decrease, the number of calls and callers in a hand, by making limp entry into the field, can very well make the difference between profit and loss, if you ask me. I positively WANT involvement in a hand, because, as I hope I've briefly intimated, by minimizing my up front cost to play, I not only involve other players in a situation where they have more oppurtunities to make mistakes, but also where I can optimize my profit on equity later in the betting rounds.
|
dogmeat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 2412
Loc: Valley of the Sun
|
|
Well, without bonuses, rakeback etc., it sure makes having an extended dryspell tough. I'm down about 420BB online(between multilimits up to $10/20) or about $6300. That doesn't sound like much, but this is from Oct. to today - about 140,000 hands at -.02bb/100.
Before this streak I have almost 3 years of online play and was winning about $50,000 in 2005 before going in the tank.
Again, the $6k loss does not sound like much, but no income for 4 months is killing me.
Hard to believe I could play a comparable 3500 hours of live poker and be losing.
Oh well, that's variance. I had a 30k dryspell in 2004 - and that looks like a cakewalk now.
Dogmeat 
|
TomBrooks
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/06/04
Posts: 7369
Loc: Trying Stud Games
|
|
Quote:
Wow. Great Post QTip. It couldn't of come at a better time as I lost 50BB today. It's clearly no where near as severe as a 500BB streak, but I am still not use to losing $200 from my bankroll.
I am surprised you have gotten up to 2/4 without ever having experienced a 50BB downswing. I think I had my first 50 BB downswing at the first limit I played at which was .10/.20, or did you start off playing at 2/4?
|
Bruce D
addict
Reged: 12/12/05
Posts: 593
Loc: frolicking in 6 max
|
|
Well this certainly could explain a down swing I took that I couldn't come to grips with. I had an original buy-in of 100 dollars at UB and started playing 25c/50c. As soon as I got my BR up to 400 dollars, I went up to 50c/$1. I figured that if I had 400 BB I could handle any downswings. So now I was on my way to 800 dollars to substantiate my 400 BB BR for $1/$2. I never made it. I got to 670 dollars and then took a downward spiral that saw me have to drop levels when I got to 150 dollars. The spiral continued down to 80 dollars. I was in complete disbelief. This was over a sample of 45K hands or so.
I am a noob at this. I play full ring games 7-10 players on UB and PP. I still make mistakes. However, I was not sure that this swing was to poor play. I have so many hands that I saved using my PT that showed draw after draw miss, or the calling stations hit their 2,3 and 4 outters over and over and over again. I was so down trodden. One thing I noticed that was interesting was that the rake on 25c/50c was something like 200 dollars and I was ahead an amount that I cannot remember (I have always been able to beat the 25c tables) but on the 50c/$1 tables I the rake was 600 dollars on the same number of hands for each! The rake should be proportional I thought. This was very disturbing.
I am on a slow road to recovery. I have now decided to only play one table at a time. Some where I read that the mistakes that are made by multitabling are compounded by inattention to specific tables. I found by playing 4 tables I was only playing my cards and not the situtation as I should have been.
My new approach has been more relaxing, more enjoyable (and perhaps just as profitable) teaching me skills in observation and note taking. I plan on moving up levels now when I get 350 BB, removing 50 BB to my pocket, and using the other 300 as BR.
This all being said, the 50c/1$ dollar rake scares me because it is obviously hurting my win rate. PT has me rated as an Eagle (I know I gotta shoot for a money bag) One thing I did notice was that my Steal rate was ~25%. This is low I have learned. That will need improvent. My whole game needs improvement and I am glad to be among a very knowledgeable crew of poker players. Thanks for you time and wisdom.
|
Checkov
newbie
Reged: 12/01/05
Posts: 34
|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to this site. When you say your down by 500BB can you define what that means in laymen's language. Much appreciated.
|
crablegs33
addict
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 624
|
|
he's down 500 big bets... i.e. $2000 at 2/4
|
Mr.K
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/09/04
Posts: 2360
Loc: Munching on Champion's Chips
|
|
Very thoughtful post, Q. I travel through the same games you do on Party, and have (like so many of the other posters) struggled with the emotional/mental side of a "proper" approach towards variance. To remain coldly rational (as poker demands) in the face of so much irrationality is absolutely excruciating.
We deal in the currency of EV, or expectation in the discussions here in SSH. The bitch of this game is that expectation is a fickle thing, and we are never really able to actually capture it in small stakes poker. We can get close, but we simply cannot trade in expectation for cash no matter how hard we try. The cards decide when that exchange occurs. Sometimes a player may go broke before he ever has a chance to realize his positive expectation -- thus your remarks about the importance of bankroll.
I've often thought about this -- what a mindfuck it would be to come up with a software tool that would cull PT data to compare two very interesting quantities: net expectation and net winnings/losses. How you went about calculating net expectation would require some choices (pre-flop? on the flop? after all turn bets?), but it could be done. In other words, what would things look like for most of us if we compared the delta between where (theoretically) we ought to be in terms of results, and where we actually are? The gap would often be large, and I bet it'd narrow a lot more slowly (if you play goot, as Izmet says) than we think it "should."
If you used the "after all turn bets" model, you could simply compare the sum EV of your hands before the river card, and the actual dollar amount won or lost. Hands that ended before the turn could just be entered with the results as equal to expectation after all turn bets.
There is NO strategy to narrow this delta (or widen it, if you're a masochist or variance consumer like the folks who play slots), yet it is a massive determining factor on whether we're winning or losing. Perhaps knowing how far we are off of where we're "supposed to be" would help motivate individuals who are playing well but experiencing poor results. Perhaps it would cause them to feel that the game "owes" them money, leading to a long-term form of "entitlement-tilt." I think I find myself slipping into that from time to time, and I don't even know what my delta is.
|
Boopotts
enthusiast
Reged: 02/16/03
Posts: 239
Loc: Detroit
|
|
I agre that the games have gotten somewhat tougher, although I think it's always good to put these kinds of discussions in perpsective. I first started playing online in February of 2000, and the first game I played in was the Paradise 5-10. That game was, in my mind, one of the absolute worst games that has ever been spread online. I've played in daytime 20-40 games at casinos that were a total fish tank by comparision. Seeing that the 5-10 was going to offer a nasty combination of high variance and low win rate, I moved down to the 3-6, and two tabled that game (that was all you could do back then) in the evenings after work for the rest of the year. The profile of that game was startling similar to what we see now; pots averaging about 5 BB's, and close to 30% of the players in a full game seeing the flop. The main difference was that those games were somewhat less aggressive then the games now, and so, by extension, a little easier to beat. You'd get to that 5 BB's by having one guy limp in, the small blind call, and then someone betting (with one other guy calling) all the way to the river. That's in contrast to how you get there now, which is frequently an open raise by the button followed by a three bet from the SB, and then all kinds of semi bluffing hilarity and hijinks on future streets until someone finally says 'chicken'.
I eked out about a 1.9 BB/ 100 hand win rate in that game over around 30,000 hands or so, and while that sample size was relatively small that was roughly inline with my B & M results for the prior two years, so I imagine that was close to my 'true' win rate. I was happy with this, until I stumbled into Party in the summer of 2003. Anyone here who was playing at Party at that time can testify to the fact that these were, on the balance, some of the softest games to ever be spread in the free world. I managed about a 4.5 BB/ 1000 win rate over 45,000 hands over the next 7 months, and seriously considered quitting my straight job to play that game full time. And I probably would have done it if the games hadn't started gradually getting tougher.
But I digress. One of the tricks to beating those early Paradise games-- and I think the same is true now-- was knowing when to release a hand. For example, when you find yourself mixed up in a relatively tight pre flop game you'll frequently find yourself against players who will simply never check raise the turn in multi way pot without two pair or better, or won't three bet a flop without top pair nut kicker or better. Against players like this calling down on account of pot size is just a money burning proposition, since your equity in the pot can often be as low as 5%. Other moves, like capping out of position with pocket T's and so on, can also cost you a fortune if you're not really paying attention to who you're playing. Most of the players who play tight pre-flop are fairly unimaginative and not very risk oriented. They're simply looking to make a big hand and get paid off. But, at the same time they're loathe to dump a decent hand even when they know they're beat. The fact that they play decent pre-flop means you can't whack them for much money, but understanding the psychology behind why and how they play is critical to keeping them from interfering with the accumulation of one's chip stack.
Most players IMO could add .5 or maybe even .7 BB/ 100 hands to their win rate if they did a better job of picking their spots when it comes to paying off nut huggers. This is the primary flaw I see in most otherwise decent players' games, and I think it's a big reason why you see these 10K, 20K and 50K break even streaks.
|
Boopotts
enthusiast
Reged: 02/16/03
Posts: 239
Loc: Detroit
|
|
I've also wondered about the viability of creating a program that gave you your expectation as opposed to your results. I think it would be tricky to do (duh), but something that basically told you your pot equity after the flop action (assuming you just ran the cards) and your actual win amount would probably be close enough to give you a good idea of whether or not it was 'you or the cards'.
|
Two Plus Two 
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
