MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
often when he first showed up on the scene i would just chase him from table to table, i perceived him to be THAT bad. i still don't mind playing with him, it seems like he gives excessive action with the worst of it far too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like pokkermon, who I just happen to have played against a TON . . . .

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
i see at least 7 BIG TIME fish on that list, no joke. variance is for real!! why is it so surprising? and think about this, if there are indeed 7 huge fish on that list, doesn't that mean there could easily be 7 very solid players on the losers list?

[/ QUOTE ]


Someone tell me who they are... I can never seem to find a good game at Riverstars. I just end up grinding the same people I think aren't that good and wonder why I run flat for eon after eon there.

[CheckRaise]

[ QUOTE ]
i see at least 7 BIG TIME fish on that list, no joke. variance is for real!! why is it so surprising? and think about this, if there are indeed 7 huge fish on that list, doesn't that mean there could easily be 7 very solid players on the losers list?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know there are fish on that list but none of them have 250k+ hands under their belts. I understand that some fish are running hot over 50-60k hands but do you really believe hock is just running good over that kind of sample? You said it yourself maybe you are missing something crucial with respect to his game.

[daryn]

yeah i don't include hock in that 7

[Hock_]

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 . . .

[CheckRaise]

nice graphs, I'd say they put the variance argument to rest.

[baronzeus]

hock,

i didn't mean to say you weren't that good of a player. i meant that you were playing like you weren't a good player. that happens to everyone though, i'm sure you'll be ok

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fairly useless. if he has been losing a ton of course everyone is gonna say he sucks and has been playing bad. they dont know what hes had, how colddecked hes been and all the other stuff. ive seen ugly variance (from myslelf and roommate) and heard from others like joshw and bk. i believe it.

dean, you simply dont understand long term implications of lhe. you sit back, smug and superior, bc it hasnt happened to you. the reason is that you havent played nearly as many hands as the rest and have been far luckier. gawd i remember when u lost 250bb and felt the world was ending. gimme a fckn break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vic I asked a question, I'm genuinely curious - if a bunch of peopel come out and say they havent noticed any bad play over the past couple of months that makes the variance angle much more likely. Fwiw I dont everyone would think someone sucks just based on them losing, I base my impressions of a player on how they play their hands (may well be some link to how well you run tho, but it isnt the be all and end all)

D

[/ QUOTE ]

considering daryn has always thought hock sucked its apparent opponents views of others is very very very skewed. thats all im getting at.

look at all the discussion in other threads wondering how alexsem, tiger76, pokkermon, hoss etc win. sometimes great players play far beyond others comprehension. when i say all high stakes players are lagmonkeys its a joke bc whatever they do its above me. to think that your opponents at that level can accurately assess how a great player is playing is asinine. if hock is truly great, then the grinding regulars are simply not gonna understand why.

also, dean, you are allegedly a winner and great player but you gave me some absolutely atrociously terrible advice in the past that cost me decent money. not on a single hand, but from an overall standpoint. i dont blame you in any way as i should have the confidence and talent to accurately assess my game.

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
also, dean, you are allegedly a winner and great player but you gave me some absolutely atrociously terrible advice in the past that cost me decent money

[/ QUOTE ]


Is this something you'd say publicly? If not, would you PM me said advice? I'm very curious now...

[inferno]

[ 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 ]

ding ding, thats why I mostly play sessions of one hour. And my biggest downswing was 300bb also.