MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you agree that you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs the vast majority of the time? What percentage do you think you have each?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have the time to calculate this on the fly obviously, but my guess was roughly:

0 outs = 20%

3 outs = 10%

4 outs = 60%

6 outs = 10%

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving Mike a range of JJ-AA, 88, 77 and half his combos of TT and the other dude range of 88, 77, all reasonable flush draws, T9s, and one combo of AA, I get you as having 7.3% equity with two cards to come which equals 3.6% equity to draw one card which equals a little bit more than 1.5 outs.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you agree that you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs the vast majority of the time? What percentage do you think you have each?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have the time to calculate this on the fly obviously, but my guess was roughly:

0 outs = 20%

3 outs = 10%

4 outs = 60%

6 outs = 10%

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly I don't agree with those estimates, but that's semantics, so whatever.

Secondly, lets look at your 60% case, where you have 4 outs. In that case, patrik has a flush draw, and I have some PP QQ or smaller. You hit an A or K on the turn. Now, me and Patrik have 10-11 outs against you to river you with. So, your 4 outer is actually more like a 3.1 outer. And so on and so forth for your other estimated # of outs. You can only really count your outs as you did if they are nut-draw type outs (like say you had AJo and the board was KT5r and you're trying to estimate your outs on an action heavy flop)

Plus your flop call also means you'll have odds for a turn call, so really the 13:1 you're getting on the flop is not as enticing of a price as that. Basically, the flop call is a compounding error IMO.

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so some have suggested that my downswing was due at least in part to the fact that I'm not a very good player.

So partly to dispute that, and partly because I sometimes have too much pride for my own good, here are a few more graphs.

First, since I turned pro about 10 1/2 months ago:


[image][/image]

As you can see, things got off to a bit of a slow start, so here's the last 450,000 hands (which incidentally roughly coincides with when I started playing 100/200 regularly). This covers the last 8 months or so:

[image][/image]


[image][/image]


No doubt there are holes in my game, but I still do pretty well. Oh, and the bad news for you all is that I've recently identifyied and have started filling some of those holes in a way that I think that will improve my winrate nicely. Plus, since I play so much, and spend a fair bit of time away from the "tables" thinking about my game, I think that my rate of improvement is a lot faster than most players.

Now if I can just stop having 1000 BB downswings . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

this whole thread was clearly just a well-orchestrated brag post

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the swings you guys experience are perpetuated by the fact you both play super long sessions and try to "play your way through them," when really, it's just simply tougher to win when you're running bad because opponents pick up on it and attack you and play you more 'correctly.' Cutting sessions short IMO cuts back on the potential likelihood for 1000BB downswings.

Knock on wood but I've yet to experience a downswing over 330BBs, and have only had 2 300BB downswings in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are exactly correct, Schneids.

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Cutting sessions short IMO cuts back on the potential likelihood for 1000BB downswings.

Knock on wood but I've yet to experience a downswing over 330BBs, and have only had 2 300BB downswings in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]



Yea, I wonder how many of you'd quit, cut yourself, etc if you went through this bitch.

[PokerHorse]

I think you all might be kidding yourselves. The upper limits are a rather small group of players overall, and while there are players that come -up on small bankrolls to take a shot,I havent seen (with all the different styles) a
big skill gap. Your talking about a few hundred thousand hands, where if you dont really have the edge you think, then randomness is the answer. There always is talk about the posters own skill level as opposed to the level of play of the opponents.If you are in fact seeing consistent playing errors by your opponents then okay, but I doubt this is happening at that level every session.
I just dont think you are that much more skilled as your opponents, regardless of your skill level. just my 2 cents

[daryn]

if you're saying that high stakes poker is basically a dice game over a few hundred thousand hands, then i agree

[daryn]

man this game is sicker than most will ever know

[PokerHorse]

If you just look at the angles of ascent and descent it is telling. I would suspect a more gradual upswing and downswing if there was truly a tactical advantage. With so
many hands per hour and the extra aggression(boldness) that even unskilled players show online, the dumb money gets hit pretty hard and fast, unless they start out extremely lucky, which of course does happen. But most of the strategically impaired are gone, leaving various levels of sharks with relativley minor skill differences. good luck

[joker122]

schneids how often would you estimate you incur a 100bb downswing? once every x hands...