Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

This has been done before in the limit forum by jay, it was a long time ago and i cant find the thread, anyway...i began thinking how much happier i would be playing poker if i knew that everytime i played i won regardless of my playing ability, cards, tilt, beats, etc... obviously this is pretty obvious and stupid since it doesn't happen, so naturally, I started thinking about how much money i would be willing to part with if it meant every session I played was in the green. I'm trying to come up with a number here or a % of my current hourly that i would be willing to cut if it meant i won everytime. Obviously this isn't a big deal for people that don't mind the ebb and flow of the game and can handle the swings/losing. I used to be like that but after so much winning and so much losing and so many large swings, well, it has sort of fried me permanently from poker. Not to mention the nice feeling of total worthlessness after a breakeven or losing session. Anyway, so anyone want to throw out numbers? Off the top of my head I'm beginning to think I would happily take a 50% paycut if it meant i won every session i played...i'm still thinking this over. Just curious to see what others think.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

50% sounds about right. If I knew I was going to make exactly 50% of my current winrate every hour I played, I should be able to easily play more than twice as much as I do right now.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I don't get it. How would you be able to play AND be guranteed a certain ammount of money? Wouldn't every session still require a lot of thinking and work? I know it's hyptothetical but is there any answer to this?

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

For example, if i was getting 5 pt bb/100. I would be willing to take 2 ptbb/100 in a heart beat if all i had to do was play the hands and i got that. so i guess id be down with a 3/5 cut. I mean...F&%#@ ya id be down with that!!!!!!!

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I'd cut my winrate over 50k hands in half to win every session. Then again, if some fairy or elf made me this promise that I would never lose again, I'd just step up.. but I guess my winrate would stay the same but at least I'd be beating the biggest games and get all the ladies.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

50% seems reasonable to me as well. I'm not happy after downswings and I let it affect me away from the table. 50% sounds like alot, but for the price of happiness, I'll take it. I'd likely put in more hours so it'd come close to evening out overall.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I wouldn't find the game interesting at all if there were no downswings.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This has been done before in the limit forum by jay, it was a long time ago and i cant find the thread, anyway...i began thinking how much happier i would be playing poker if i knew that everytime i played i won regardless of my playing ability, cards, tilt, beats, etc... obviously this is pretty obvious and stupid since it doesn't happen, so naturally, I started thinking about how much money i would be willing to part with if it meant every session I played was in the green. I'm trying to come up with a number here or a % of my current hourly that i would be willing to cut if it meant i won everytime. Obviously this isn't a big deal for people that don't mind the ebb and flow of the game and can handle the swings/losing. I used to be like that but after so much winning and so much losing and so many large swings, well, it has sort of fried me permanently from poker. Not to mention the nice feeling of total worthlessness after a breakeven or losing session. Anyway, so anyone want to throw out numbers? Off the top of my head I'm beginning to think I would happily take a 50% paycut if it meant i won every session i played...i'm still thinking this over. Just curious to see what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the answer is low enough (I'll take 1/3 my win rate to be guaranteed a win!), you should be able to find a backer.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I say 10%. I think anything more is just silly, but lately i have been miserable because i have not been winning, not doing well in school because i play poker, girl problems etc, and i feel like [censored] when i have to deal with all that and then losing 10k in the middle of the day. I try not to let it bother me but I'm no robot. I suspect that a lot of people's answers will depend on overall happiness in other aspects of their life, but to the people who are saying 50%, i dont think you realize just how much that is that you are giving up.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has been done before in the limit forum by jay, it was a long time ago and i cant find the thread, anyway...i began thinking how much happier i would be playing poker if i knew that everytime i played i won regardless of my playing ability, cards, tilt, beats, etc... obviously this is pretty obvious and stupid since it doesn't happen, so naturally, I started thinking about how much money i would be willing to part with if it meant every session I played was in the green. I'm trying to come up with a number here or a % of my current hourly that i would be willing to cut if it meant i won everytime. Obviously this isn't a big deal for people that don't mind the ebb and flow of the game and can handle the swings/losing. I used to be like that but after so much winning and so much losing and so many large swings, well, it has sort of fried me permanently from poker. Not to mention the nice feeling of total worthlessness after a breakeven or losing session. Anyway, so anyone want to throw out numbers? Off the top of my head I'm beginning to think I would happily take a 50% paycut if it meant i won every session i played...i'm still thinking this over. Just curious to see what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the answer is low enough (I'll take 1/3 my win rate to be guaranteed a win!), you should be able to find a backer.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING. We have a winner. This is exactly what I am getting at.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say 10%. I think anything more is just silly, but lately i have been miserable because i have not been winning, not doing well in school because i play poker, girl problems etc, and i feel like [censored] when i have to deal with all that and then losing 10k in the middle of the day. I try not to let it bother me but I'm no robot. I suspect that a lot of people's answers will depend on overall happiness in other aspects of their life, but to the people who are saying 50%, i dont think you realize just how much that is that you are giving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty agree with everything here. I'd say my % is around 10 also.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

What if you never have losing sessions now.....

I dont think Ive had one in a couple months.

Stamina, insurance
 

Part of your winrate is mental stamina. It's an integral part of the game and you can makes lots of money in dealing with swings better than opponents.

One partial solution though would be having insurance deals in online poker rooms. Or even possibly through a 3rd party. Suppose you have 80% equity in a hand with one card to come. You could make a deal for 75/25 with the opponent (or 80/20), you could make a deal with the pokerroom for 75 procent, or with a 3rd party.

Especially the options that don't involve the opponent could be very interesting, as part of the fun for fish is to suckout and win big pots instead of slowly grinding to the felt every weekend; AND! the insuror can make quite a lot of money through it, as long as they have enough money.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

You (AZK) and edge seem like good, successful players from the little I've seen. If I knew you a better, I'd probably be asking to back you, perhaps putting a few backers together if it were too much money for me.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I deal with downswings very badly....I'm a tiltmonkey and my tiltiness is prone to last for months....Down streaks are emotionally devastating to me....

All that said:

[ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't find the game interesting at all if there were no downswings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I agree with you in terms of that I would take a percentage decrease in hourly rate to not have to experience the bad side of variance. You can really do something like you propose without giving up any money. If you have a good roll online just record how many hours you play in a given week. At the end of every week transfer ~75% of what your hourly rate is. You pay yourself each week regardless of if you are on a sick heater or a bad downswing. It will help reinforce how much your income is tied to how many hands you get in, and will help deal with downswings.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

To me, a backing deal that paid 50% of my regular winrate per hand would be completely different than what AZK is outlining. Even if the results don't make a difference at all, I will still feel bad if I lose a backer's money, and therefore I'll still tilt and take losing seriously. I'm imagining AZK's scenario as more of a program where I log on and click around for a bit and get paid an astronomical hourly rate (by most people's standards) and I don't care about what happens.

It makes no sense for me to accept a backing deal at 10/20 because I have an overly large bankroll to begin with, and I will probably play just as hard and take losing just as seriously regardless of whose money I'm playing with. Actually, I might pay more attention with a backer just because of pride or honor or something like that, but I definitely won't make twice as much.

Edit: If someone wanted to back me at significantly higher stakes (say 50/100 or so), I would possibly be interested, but that would be more for interest's sake than to make money.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

If you really want to assure yourself of a positive 10% win rate, drop down to something like 1/2, play tight, and multitable. Go ahead and bonus whore if your rakeback deal isn't killer.

Mind-numbing, but profitable.

Of course, there is another downside: if you do happen to somehow book a losing session, you'll really be feeling like crap.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

i wouldnt pay anything I dont think. I'd definitely take more money for more variance though

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt pay anything I dont think. I'd definitely take more money for more variance though

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a limit player lost in the wrong forum but I totally agree with Jason - without variance there isn't poker and wanting it to be that way is a slap in the face to the beauty that is poker. You might as well just say "I'd like to find a hobby that pays me $200 an hour and all I have to do is sit there", maybe you could find a job as a grass growing judge at a high stakes grass growing competition.

If so many good / winning players want this I should quit playing and just stake people (seriously).

-DeathDonkey

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

Yeah I wouldnt give up more than 10% of my hourly rate. I would only consider because I just bought a house and have more financial responsibilities etc.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

Yea, you guys are a bunch of pussies

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose? *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by TStoneMBD

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

Eh

I'd say 35%

mainly because I lose that much from tilt from downswings.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

Huh?

What the [censored] would be the point in playing if you couldn't loose?

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't find the game interesting at all if there were no downswings.

[/ QUOTE ]

word, does that mean I have a gambling problem?

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh?

What the [censored] would be the point in playing if you couldn't loose?

[/ QUOTE ] http://www.hopstudios.com/nep/five/consignment.jpg

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

omfg

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt pay anything I dont think. I'd definitely take more money for more variance though

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd take *either* far more variance or far less.

(Far more = my winrate is higher so the swings hurt less, heh)

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I'm assuming he means relatively more variance

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

What is DeathDonkey doing here commenting about variance and downswings - he's never suffered one to my knowledge (and according to his track record for his entire poker career [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img])

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

Once you get over 6pt, you barely have losing days if you play enough hands per day.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I wonder if there's something I'm missing here, because the answer seems trivial to me: if any such thing as a "guaranteed win" existed, its price (intended as how much in terms of winnings one would be willing to pay for it) would be equal to all the winnings, minus the rake (or any other cost associated with taking part in the game) and minus an arbitrarily small quantity.

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.

Maybe this should be crossposted to the probability forum...

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Party allows you to play an infinite number of tables.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I'm being staked right now (for higher games). I give up 1/3 of what I win, and I keep 100% of all bonuses etc.

Makes the game way easier to play and way less stressful.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Party allows you to play an infinite number of tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

yet..

also this is probably getting away from the point of this thread. but variance is what keeps bad players coming back for more. in that respect, its pretty awesome.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt pay anything I dont think. I'd definitely take more money for more variance though

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

I'd give up 5% of my hourly rate to eliminate variance. Figure if I had my bankroll invested instead of on the ready this would be a good trade off.

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, you guys are a bunch of pussies

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
 

this wouldn't work out in reality, b/c you'd play worse knowing you were getting an hourly rate