Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a COMPLETE goddamned idiot jay_shark? Or just pretending?



[/ QUOTE ]

Just pretending .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

You're doing a great job.

You should get an oscar or something.

Seriously, if you think I've misapplied jason's formula, then apply it "correctly" instead of being a freaking moron.

If you think the formula's wrong, then you're on your own unless you can provide something that works better.

Unless you plan to do one of those two things, then please do not type another word where I can see it, ever again. Because at this point in time, you are the absolute most idiotic of all the internet idiots I've ever seen. You're taking idiocy to completely new levels, so incredible and improbable that I am in complete awe.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

You know what? I said you were a monkey, only capable of plugging numbers into formulas.

I have to take even that much back now, because here's a formula that spits out exactly what we're looking for, and you still somehow manage to not get it.

You're a failure even as a monkey.

You are extremely successful at pissing me off with the hopeless of your idiocy though.

Good job. At least you're capable of something.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

If I were you , I'd try to get in contact with BruceZ .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

If I were you, I'd try to apply the solution that somebody already developed. Because you look more like an ass with every refusal to show how anything I've done here is incorrect.

Run the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

Or refute the validity of the solution.

Or stfu.

I don't care which.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

I seriously just do not get your current level of stupidity.

You recommended I go to the probability forum for an answer.

I did, because it was obvious you were incapable of giving one.

I got one. Somebody had already figured out this exact problem previously, and pointed out a thread with a handy formula (based on methods and concepts that I won't even begin to pretend to understand, so if the person posting the formula was full of it, then so am I).

I applied that answer, exercising my own monkey skills.

Still you're acting like a completely ignorant jackass.

But I took one last bit of your advice. I am going to try to get in contact with BruceZ, to get him to comment on my first post in this thread today, showing the actual probabilities.

I fully expect him to look over it and say "that looks right to me", and I will LAUGH MY ASS OFF, because at that point, the truly stupendous level of idiocy you have shown in this thread will have been exposed to it's fullest simply by following steps THAT YOU YOURSELF RECOMMENDED.

And on the off chance that he says I botched the transition to excel, he'll probably give me the right numbers, which I will post here as corrections to my incorrect ones. Because unlike you, I am not actually afraid of retracting past statements, no matter how sure I was of their truth at the time, and I especially am not afraid of being wrong.

The best part is that, no matter what the result is, you win the jackass contest, because this would have been a nice, calm, informative thread had you simply answered the right goddamn question in the first place.

Of course, I'm still not convinced you understand what the question is, despite the fact that it's been quite explicitly clarified half-a-dozen times now.

But just in case, here's yet another refresher.

WE WANT TO KNOW THE PROBABILITY OF HAVING A DOWNSWING OF SIZE X OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HANDS.

Which is *exactly* what jason's formula calculates.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Pzhon has already informed you that your thinking is off .
I wouldn't doubt him if I were you .

Again , please do not waste my time anymore .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Pzhon informed me that my own attempt at approximating the value myself was off.

If you actually followed that thread, you would realize that I agreed with him in the end, and used jason's formula instead, which as far as I can tell is exactly what I wanted anyway, not the vague approximation I was trying to work out using just the standard deviation.

AND THAT FORMULA IS WHERE THESE NUMBERS COME FROM, not from my own misguided attempts at approximating a solution. ya freakin retard.

[ QUOTE ]
Again , please do not waste my time anymore .

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, who is wasting who's time.

As far as I can tell, everything you've said in this thread so far has been a complete waste of time for anybody who's read it, not just my own.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

2 simple questions.

#1: Do you believe jason's formula is valid for computing the value it is attempting to compute?

#2: Do you believe the value jason's formula is attempting to compute is the probability of having a downswing of size X in Y hands?

In the interest of not wasting anybody's time, a simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no in either case, feel free to explain, but it is not necessary.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

I already informed you that there is no simple formula to give you an exact answer to these problems . Jason's solution is only said to be valid for large b , but how large does it have to be ? What is the margin of error ?

You may need to read your own thread again . It does appear that you're completely confused and out of your element .

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...=0#Post12737174

Pzhon has told you that your argument is a mess . Even though Jason has posted an approximation formula , I don't believe you even understand anything that was written . You're an immature fool , and I've tried to help you numerous times but you're so stubborn that there is no point trying to get through to you .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 simple questions.

#1: Do you believe jason's formula is valid for computing the value it is attempting to compute?

#2: Do you believe the value jason's formula is attempting to compute is the probability of having a downswing of size X in Y hands?

In the interest of not wasting anybody's time, a simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no in either case, feel free to explain, but it is not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at liberty to comment . These are not my formulas so you should be asking Jason , even though my name is Jason too lol .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/4638/swingspl7.jpg

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pzhon has told you that your argument is a mess .

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...and? Maybe *you* should reread that thread, including recent comments.

I already said I agreed with him in the end. Everything I tried to do on my own was absolutely a complete mess. Once again, I'm not the one here who's afraid to appear anything less than perfect.

But at least I *tried* to get *something*. All you've done is say "there's no easy solution", and tried to imply an upper bound on the solution (the RoR calculation) which is PROVABLY false, as in it is very easy to prove (which I have done 2 or 3 times now in this thread) that the chance of a downswing of size X can be greater than the RoR for that many buyins.

[ QUOTE ]
I already informed you that there is no simple formula to give you an exact answer to these problems . Jason's solution is only said to be valid for large b , but how large does it have to be ? What is the margin of error ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's only valid for large values of b, but he thought it was valid for 360BB, then it should certainly be be valid for 20 buyins (2KBB).

And an approximation is better than nothing (which is exactly what you have contributed to this thread, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING).

Especially since it's not exactly a precise question to begin with. It's a sanity question (can it possibly be this bad?). Exactness is not required.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you even understand anything that was written .

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand exactly as much as I need to understand to be a monkey. Do I understand how the formula was derived? Absolutely not. If I could have derived it myself, I would have. But do I believe you have a deeper understanding of it than I do? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY NOT. You've already proved yourself to be a monkey.

And since you have already argued that jason's formula doesn't actually give us what we're looking for (when the end result is clearly EXACTLY what we're looking for, whether the formula itself is valid or not), I'm still not convinced you know what the question is. You probably still want to tie it to RoR calculations. If you can't understand what a very simple question is asking, after multiple explicit recitations of the question, then honestly, what hope do you have of understanding anything about that formula other than how to plug the numbers in?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not at liberty to comment . These are not my formulas so you should be asking Jason , even though my name is Jason too lol .

[/ QUOTE ]
So you feel completely at liberty to call me an idiot for attempting to *use* the formula, but not to say why?

I think the appropriate term for that is cowardice.

And as far as asking him directly, he obviously believes it is at least somewhat valid, since he gave me the link to it himself.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Here are jason1990's comments on the validity of the formula I used.

[ QUOTE ]
If 20 buy-ins is 1000 PTBB, then it appears you have used the formula correctly.

Here are some comments on the validity of the formula. It is based on a Brownian motion model. Brownian motion is the scaling limit of a random walk. This model is appropriate in situations where you are considering a large number of hands/sessions which are independent and over which game conditions do not change. It is an idealization. However, it is the same model from which one can derive the standard risk of ruin formulas that everyone relies on. I think it is a reasonable model, though not perfect.

Within this model, the formula itself is valid only for "large" b. As I said, I have not computed any margins of error. However, I did post the exact Laplace transform of the time T until the downswing. This is valid for any b (within the Brownian motion model, of course). In principle, one could use a computer to numerically invert the transform and calculate the exact probabilities.

I realize that these comments may be over your head, but I wanted to post them anyway. Perhaps someone else out there might be interested in this formula, and may even want to try the numerical inversion I mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yes, his comments are mostly over my head, but I thought this one in particular was interesting:

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is the same model from which one can derive the standard risk of ruin formulas that everyone relies on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

wow you guys need to get a life, who cares whos right

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

I will go almost certainly go hopelessly insane and probably embark on a mass murder spree if *edit* jay_shark is not wrong.

So obviously, I care. And so does every potential victim of said spree. (who knows, you might be one)

I don't actually care about being right. I do care about showing somebody who has been so utterly ignorant and pigheaded as jay_shark has been in this thread, to be wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, though.

And you obviously cared enough to tell us to "get a life". Thanks for the bump.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

He's asking you to prove yourself jay_shark and to prove your point of view.

You seem unable to do this.

I award TNixon the winner.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]


And you obviously cared enough to tell us to "get a life". Thanks for the bump.

[/ QUOTE ]

im glad you didnt fire thousands and thousands of words and numbers at me. thanks

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
im glad you didnt fire thousands and thousands of words and numbers at me. thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
np.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

double-post

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I award TNixon the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Though my word means squat [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But Jay has said more stuff that makes no sense

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

What doesn't make sense ?

Your clever tricks do not impress me .

There will be no more discussion in this thread on my part after this .
If you're desperate for an answer you could have pm'ed me or even asked one of the experts in the probability forum .

Tnixon already posted his side of the argument (in the probability forum) and was told that he was wrong from one of the most highly respected statisticians in this forum .

Jason1990's solution gives you the probability that you will achieve a downswing of size x commencing after time t .
This is very different from dropping x buy-ins commencing from t=0 . In other words , Jason's solution determines the probability that you have a downswing of b big blinds commencing from some t for t>=0 . This means you can have a downswing of size b after you've already accumulated some positive amount to your bankroll .

Op was interested in the likelihood of dropping x buy-ins in a typical cash game . The risk of ruin calculations can help determine the likelihood of such an even occurring .

For a player with a win-rate of 8ptbb/100 hands and a s.d of 60ptbb/100 hands , your risk of dropping 10 buy-ins (100 big blinds) should be :

e^(-500*2*8)/(60^2) ~ 10.83% which is fairly high and so 10 buy-ins should NOT be recommended .

Watch what happens if we increase our bankroll to 1000 big bets or 2000 big blinds .

e^(-1000*2*8/60^2) ~ 1.17% .

So this means that if we have 20 buy-ins for a cash game with the aforementioned win-rate and standard deviation , then the chance of ever going bust is about 1% ; big difference from playing with only 10 buy-ins .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Good god. Please make it stop.

How can you *really* be so far off, after *so* much explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
Tnixon already posted his side of the argument (in the probability forum) and was told that he was wrong from one of the most highly respected statisticians in this forum .

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, WTF are you even talking about here? Do you even know? Did you actually even read the thread?

He certainly did tell me I was very wrong about *something*, that is absolutely true. In the thread you're talking about, I attempted to come up with a method for measuring the chance of a drop of size X, based on something somebody else had said previously.

That method (for reasons that I understand perfectly now) was a completely hopeless waste of time, and even attempting it was a complete brainfart on my part.

*That* is what your expert from the probability forum told me I was wrong about.

Which also has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on anything I've said in this thread, because I didn't claim that particular method was valid, or use it at any point.

[ QUOTE ]
Jason1990's solution gives you the probability that you will achieve a downswing of size x commencing after time t .
This is very different from dropping x buy-ins commencing from t=0 .

[/ QUOTE ]

I applied Jason199's solution in EXACTLY the same way he did, answering EXACTLY the same question, and he himself agreed that I applied the solution correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words , Jason's solution determines the probability that you have a downswing of b big blinds commencing from some t for t>=0 . This means you can have a downswing of size b after you've already accumulated some positive amount to your bankroll .

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is EXACTLY the question being asked. How much more clear can this really be?

When asking "what are the odds of having an X buyin downswing over 10k hands", we're not asking if the drop STARTS at the beginning. Just if there's one of that size AT SOME POINT.

The fact that you *still* don't seem to understand this, despite the fact that it's been stated explicitly probably half a dozen times now, just completely boggles me.

[ QUOTE ]
Your clever tricks do not impress me .

[/ QUOTE ]
I am completely in awe of *your* "clever" tricks.

I have made many attempts to un-confuse you (you STILL don't understand the question being asked), and you are thicker than any brick wall I've ever heard of.

You, on the other hand, keep restating the same things, in the face of new evidence (I've proved in terms that even you should be able to understand that the risk of ruin is *not* a good approximation for the chance of a drop over X hands), with absolutely zero backing for any of them, except for claims that "the experts at the probability forum have already told you you're wrong", when what I was told I was wrong about has nothing to whatsoever with anything I've said in this thread.

I honestly do not understand how somebody can be so pigheaded, while being so utterly wrong.

I mean, you still don't understand the question we're trying to answer here, for hell's sake.

[ QUOTE ]
There will be no more discussion in this thread on my part after this .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably a very good thing.

Everything you've said so far in this thread has been either explicitly disproved (that RoR calculations can be used to approximate the chance of a drop), or has been so completely incorrect and hopelessly baseless (that I was told I was "wrong" by an expert in the probability forum, when what I was "wrong" about was something that hasn't even been brought into this discussion), that by now, it has to be absolutely clear to anybody who is still reading that you truly have reached a new plateau of stubborn idiocy here.

You can't quit while you're ahead (because you're so far behind in understanding here that it's starting to make me ill), but you can, and should, stop digging the hole deeper.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone with experience comment on swings/variance in headsup cash games? I'm a sixmax player and have 5-7 buyin downswings with the occasional 10-12 buyin downer. How much 'worse' can I expect it to be in headsup? Thanks for any advice...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tnixon , you need to learn how to read the original post .

Take a deep breath and start with the very first question he addressed . Your standard deviation , which is the square root of variance , is going to be larger than 100 big blinds/100 hands for the typical player . So this means ,with a win-rate of 8ptbb/100 hands and a s.d of 60ptbb/100 hands there is a 68% chance that you will win between 16-120 to 16+120 big blinds in your first 100 hands .

Read the second question carefully .
"how much 'worse' can I expect it to be heads up ? "

Where the [censored] does it say he wants to know the probability of dropping x buy-ins after some time t>=0 ?

You should go read Hooked on Phonics because it may do you some good .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]


Which is EXACTLY the question being asked. How much more clear can this really be?



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to read the original post again . Please quote the two questions he addressed .

Once you do this , tell me the "exact" question he wants to know .

I find it funny that you've created an imaginary question of your own concern .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

To the former Red Sox and current Indian:

He who argues with a fool makes it two.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tnixon , you need to learn how to read the original post .

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to read the original post, and then read the rest of them, and then learn to UNDERSTAND what people are actually asking. Seriously, your reading comprehension sucks major ass.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a sixmax player and have 5-7 buyin downswings with the occasional 10-12 buyin downer. How much 'worse' can I expect it to be in headsup?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite clearly a question about how drastic downswings can be, and the question was quite clearly framed in terms of "X buyin downswings".

Furthermore, even if by some amazing miracle, that question wasn't actually asking how much bigger the swings can be (although how you could posssibly misread such a simple question is *completely* beyond me) there have been many other posts in the thread that are obviously quite specifically talking about the odds of downswings over a period of time. You have tried to answer those questions using RoR calculations, but there are really two possible questions here:

#1: What are the chances that I'm going to have a 20 buyin downswing starting RIGHT NOW.

#2: What are the chance of having a 20 buyin downswing starting at any point over the next X hands.

RoR is actually an upper bound on the answer to question one, and that is apparently the question you keep answering repeatedly.

However, not only is question #1 not what people generally mean when asking about downswings, but it is completely inappropriate to try to answer questions about the frequency of 20BI downswings (such as how likely it is to have at least one per month, which is another specific situation that has been mentioned).

You keep giving an answer to question #1, but that IS NOT THE QUESTION AT HAND. Nobody gives a [censored] if the downswing starts NOW. They care if it's going to happen at *any* point over the next X number of hands.

Lets say we want to know how likely it is to have a 20 buyin downswing over the next 1500 hands. If we go up for 1k hands, and *then* start a 20 buyin downswing that lasts 500 hands, that is still a 20 buyin downswing at some point in the next 1500 hands even though it didn't start at the beginning of the 1500 hands.

And this is exactly where your complete lack of comprehension comes in.

In the past, you've said that I'm not very good at making myself clear.

But it honestly does not get any more clear than this. If you still cannot understand why you are completely off-base, and have been through this entire thread, then the problem is not my lack of clarity, it's YOUR lack of understanding and comprehension.

But since you're so convinced you know what the original post was asking, and that you've sufficiently answered, lets ask?

Juggernaut, if you're still around (which is highly unlikely), could you please comment on whether Question #1 or #2 is more relevant to what you were asking to begin with?

I know the answer, but apparently jay_shark needs to hear it from somebody other than me. Which makes some amount of sense, because I've made the price of admission *very* high by now.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

lol

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
To the former Red Sox and current Indian:

He who argues with a fool makes it two.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I just keep thinking that at some point, everything's going to click for jay_shark, and he will realize what a complete [censored] idiot and jackass he's been here.

Obviously I should just give up, because it's simply not going to happen.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that you've created an imaginary question of your own concern .

[/ QUOTE ]
And I find it rather sad that *you* are the one who has actually done that, but that you are completely incapable of realizing that fact.

Obviously you are the one with a very different view of what people generally mean when they're asking about the frequency and size of swings.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

One final go.

Since you're now claiming that I don't understand what the original question was, or what everybody's been talking about all along, lets take a quick (or not so quick, as the case may be) look.

The original post is quite clearly a question about frequency and size of downswings.

Your math can only possibly answer questions about the odds of having a drop of size X starting RIGHT NOW. In fact, this comment:
[ QUOTE ]
Jason1990's solution gives you the probability that you will achieve a downswing of size x commencing after time t .
This is very different from dropping x buy-ins commencing from t=0 .

[/ QUOTE ]
shows that you do actually realize this. Jason's solution gives the probability of having a downswing of size x at *any* point over a given time interval, while your approach gives the probability of having a downswing of size x starting RIGHT NOW. That is what you just said, so you do realize that, unless your writing comprehension (and in, understanding what you just wrote) is as bad as your reading comprehension.

What completely boggles me is that you think your approach is what people mean when they're talking about swings of size X. "How likely is having a 20BI drop over a month" isn't a question of how likely it is that the month will START with a 20 BI drop, it's a question about how likely it is to have a 20BI drop *at any point through the entire month*. Because of that very basic lack of understanding on your part, it completely amazes me that you believe you have actually contributed anything of worth to this discussion.

But lets take a trip down memory lane, since obviously one of the two of us needs to re-read the thread, and see what everybody else has been talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
I think if the stakes are reasonably low and your style isn't too aggressive/bluffy most of your downswings will be in the neighborhood of 5-10 BIs.

[/ QUOTE ]
A comment about the average size of drops. Your math can only possibly answer questions about whether a drop is starting RIGHT NOW. You cannot even begin to make comments on the frequency or likelyhood of drops at any point over a given time interval.

[ QUOTE ]
but i dont think 20 bi downswings are impossible for even decent players. But day to day variance, you shouldnt let losing 5 or 6 buy ins affect you cos that will become sooo standard

[/ QUOTE ]
More comments about frequency and size of drops, which your approach is completely incapable of addressing.

[ QUOTE ]
swings of more than 7-8 BuyIns should be pretty uncommon

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can only answer whether a 7-8 buyin drop is starting RIGHT NOW, then how can you possibly comment on how common 7-8 buyin swings might be?

[ QUOTE ]
According to my simulations even a 50 buy-in downswing is possible with a stable winrate of 8 PTBB/100 (no tilting/other psychological defects allowed) although it'll be extremely rare. That is for a player whose standard deviation per 100 hands is about 75PTBB/100. 20BI downswings seem to be quite common.

[/ QUOTE ]
More comments on the frequency of downswings of a particular size. Again, your approach simply cannot even begin to answer "how likely is it for me to have a 50 buyin-downswing at *some* point. Your approach can only answer "how likely is it that I am going to start a 50 buyin downswing RIGHT NOW".

[ QUOTE ]
20+ BI downswings will happen to a full time player probably monthly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another comment on the frequency of 20+BI downswings. Jason's solution is *perfectly* relevant here, and can actually tell you how likely it is to have at least one 20BI drop per month. (again, if you don't believe the formula itself is valid, then you're on your own, but you don't appear to have made that claim yet)

[ QUOTE ]
And what does "quite common" mean here? Just a ballpark would be good, like an average number of 20BI downswings in 10k hands (or 100k or 500k hands or whatever if 10k isn't enough).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is *MY* specific question.

[ QUOTE ]
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you've calculated a 1.1% risk of ruin when starting with 20 buyins, but said absolutely nothing about how likely a 20 buy-in downswing is over any given X number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is a clarification to *MY* specific question. From this point on, what you thought the *original* poster was asking (even though you botched the comprehension there, too), is completely irrelevant, because any argument or discussion from here on out should be based on the question I was asking.

If I'm asking one question, and you're answering another question, and you're trying to tell me that I'm not asking the question that I'm asking, then who's the idiot here?

If you don't think my question is the same as the original poster's question, then that's the point you should have been arguing all along. This could have been a whole lot shorter and less flameful. You'd still be an idiot, because they're exactly the same, but maybe you could have avoiding ending up looking like a fool.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case , I computed the ror of a player with a win-rate of 8ptbb/100 hands and a s.d of 150 ptbb/100 hands to be 5.81% .

The probability of losing 20 buy-ins in a month must be lower than this number .


[/ QUOTE ]

This is your first provably false statement in the thread. I proved in a variety of ways that for *MY* question (which in my opinion, matches the original poster's question, but whether it does or not is, again, irrelevant), the chance of a drop of size X over Y hands can quite clearly be greater than the RoR for a bankroll of size X. Again, your lack of comprehension intrudes, and apparently that all goes way over your head, because you STILL don't know what question is actually being asked.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest downswing I've had was about 9-12 buy-ins(btu there were 2-3 mistakes for stacks), also I could've had S.D. 150bb/100, if played more agro. So I feel that 20 buy-in swings is possible once a month (considering how bad I was running sometime, and it COULD'VE BEEN even worse), and 30 buy-ins downswings once in a quarter(playing 30K hands a month)

[/ QUOTE ]
Another comment about the frequency and size of downswings. Seeing a pattern here? Everybody's talking about a situation that you have no answer for, because you're answering the wrong question, and your approach cannot possibly begin to comment on what *is* being discussed.

From that point on, everybody else leaves the thread, and flames begin to fly, but at that point, any argument is over *MY* specific question, whether it's the same as the original poster's or not. (and again, I believe that you are completely off-base here and simply do not understand what people mean when they are asking about frequency and size of swings)

And quite frankly, your attempts to tell me that I don't know what question *I* am asking are so completely beyond pathetic, that after this, I think I have to try to take sweetjazz's advice, and quit making a fool of myself through further argument.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Btw sweetjazz, I'm not a sports fan *at all*. The only reason I had any clue what the hell you were talking about is that I've had a few people comment about how I must be a Red Sox fan.

TNixon is my real first initial and last name. An exceedingly creative choice of username, I know.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

dear lord cliff notes please? Or can someone quote a post I should read or something like that?

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
dear lord cliff notes please? Or can someone quote a post I should read or something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP asked:
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone with experience comment on swings/variance in headsup cash games? I'm a sixmax player and have 5-7 buyin downswings with the occasional 10-12 buyin downer. How much 'worse' can I expect it to be in headsup? Thanks for any advice...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then Jay made a calc and said:

[ QUOTE ]
there is only a 1.1% risk of ever busting from this game

[/ QUOTE ]

And TN went "Uuh didn't you calculate your risk of ruin?"

and Jay responded:

[ QUOTE ]
n any case , I computed the ror of a player with a win-rate of 8ptbb/100 hands and a s.d of 150 ptbb/100 hands to be 5.81% .

The probability of losing 20 buy-ins in a month must be lower than this number .


[/ QUOTE ]

Which sounds weird.. And so did TN think, so then they went on about that a bit. TN was saying you can't use a ROR calc because you have a fixed reference point, and Jay was saying:

[ QUOTE ]
you need to focus on a reference point

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the rest is basically TN trying to say that the question is not about busting, but rather at any given point having a 20 BI downer. While Jay doesn't agree.. I think..

And TN went to the probability forum and asked the question. He didn't enter the thread with a "know it all attitude", but he instead asked a question and then asked if his approximation of the problem made any sense. Some professor gave a semi-douchebaggy answer that he was wrong and TN admitted he was wrong and tried to understand what he did wrong. Jay then said that TN was arguing with a statistics professor, while he in fact was just trying to understand the not so easy problem and was asking him questions. I'm guessing Jay and that statistics guy has some form of contact because that professor was a bit rude imo, and Jay was praising him. Only a guess though..

So basically Jay thinks OP wants to know the likelyhood of busting with a 20 BI roll.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to focus on a reference point . The formula tells you the probability of dropping 20 buy-ins if you start off with 20 buy-ins . So this means that if you win 10 in a row and drop 20 in a row , then you're down only 10 buy-ins from 20 as your initial starting point (excluding rake) .

So if you're a losing player , there is a 100% chance you will go bust at some point . However , it's not true that there is a 100% chance you will go bust after one month of playing .

[/ QUOTE ]

TN doesn't agree, and thinks the OP is more interested in knowing the probability of a 20 BI downer rather than the chance of busting with a 20 BI roll.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

That's the way I read it and it looks like TN's reasoning is sound. Having a random 20 BI downswing is not the same as starting with 20 BI and losing it all. It is possible to have multiple 20 BI swings on the road to bustoville with a 20 BI bankroll. Shipurstack posted a good sample graph. As for the math to provide an answer, I have no clue what's correct but will trust the resident stat guys.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

this was an amusing thread. jay shark you're pretty obtuse.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

I feel sorry that I brought up this old thread

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel sorry that I brought up this old thread

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not *that* old.

I'm still steaming about it, just a little.

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's the way I read it and it looks like TN's reasoning is sound. Having a random 20 BI downswing is not the same as starting with 20 BI and losing it all. It is possible to have multiple 20 BI swings on the road to bustoville with a 20 BI bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know that it's not the same . None of us even questioned this at all . You may want to re-read the thread again since I was the one to first make this distinction .

I provided a "correct" answer to the way I interpreted the problem .

Re: Swings in NLCASH
 

Seriously, Jay, try gunning for something more ambitious than "correct." I'm pretty sure OP was after something correct rather than "correct." Besides, you've driven poor TNixon to the brink of insanity and homicidal rage with your misguided interpretations. Enough already. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]