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

[whitelime]

[ 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.

[EmpireMaker2]

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

I dont think Ive had one in a couple months.

[Nielsio]

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.

[microbet]

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.

[aggie]

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 ]

[freemoney]

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.

[edge]

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.

[creedofhubris]

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.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

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

[DeathDonkey]

[ 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