MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Yes, this is a post about variance, but IMHO it's a subject that deserves more serious treatment than what's given in BBV, so I'm posting it here. Mods, if you think it should be moved then feel free.

So the question has often been asked: How big a downswing can a solid, winning player expect to experience playing high stakes LHE? [500BBs? hahahaha]

For pros and serious players this is a very important question; one that gets to the heart of bankroll management and other issues too -- including strategic issues if one starts adjusting based on short-term results.

bicyclekick provided one answer, but many dismissed it, explaining it away (a) as an anomaly; (b) by saying he lost his edge over his opponents; and/or (c) he was never any good to begin with.

I think that my experience over the last 2+ months should add something to the discussion. I think it's fair to say that I am a solid, winning player up to and including 200/400. I was near the top of the PStars win list compiled by baronzeus. For the first 3 months of the year I was running at 1.1BB /100 (163k hands); and since April 13 at 1.3BB/100 (46k hands).

It's the period from April 4-12 that this post is really about.

So here are a few graphs for the period from March 1 to May 7 that describe the situation better than any words could.

First, the entire period in BBs:

[image]http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5...llbbpx0.th.jpg[/image]

Next, in dollars:

[image]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2...to57lf3.th.jpg[/image]


Finally, here's just 100/200. My bread and butter game. That's right -- just shy of a <u>1000 BB</u> downswing:

[image]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2...12bbmy7.th.jpg[/image]

Ok, so a few observations and comments.

First, this insane downswing was not the result of tilt. I can't say I was 100% tilt-free, but I was actually pretty even-keeled throughout. To the extent I altered my game, it was to tighten-up just a little and play a little more passively (since it seemed that no matter what my hand was someone was going to suck out on me). No, I did not play my best throughout, but I think I actually saved myself a lot of bets by being more conservative than usual because, in fact, I just couldn't win a hand.

Just looking at parts of the graphs should show that the downswing wasn't the result of bad play. I mean there's one 400BB downswing where I basically didn't win a single hand. Nobody can play THAT badly.

Second, to the extent anyone needs convincing that this nearly 1000 BB downswing wasn't just because I suck, I think the graph immediately before and after the downswing goes a long way to refuting that. It's not like I was really good and then I sucked and then I was really good again. Not only that, but even during the downswing I was actually beating the 200/400 and 50/100 games. It was only the 100/200 game that I was losing in. People found lots of ways to dismiss bicyclekick's downswing as something other than variance, but I think it's a lot harder to dismiss this.

Third, was there anything I could have done differently? Sure, I can always improve my game. And I don't think I was necessarily playing my "A" game throughout. But I think I was playing pretty well. Whatever adjustments I could have made wouldn't have saved me more than 50-100BBs at most.

Finally, let me just say that although this is a little scary, it might also be reassuring to players who used to win but haven't lately. Bad runs can be much deeper and longer than many people think.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but I figured that given my situation (volume of hands, consistent success,etc.), this might be useful and interesting to some of you. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

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

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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 ]

I'm doughnutz. Many posters probably think I play [censored] even when I'm winning [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But given the nice winning streaks immediately before and after, it's highly unlikely that my play varied enough to account for even a fraction of the change. (And I don't think it changed much at all)

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Sad truth of the matter is, nobody who got the answers is going to give them to you since that'll directly impact their hourly rate.

Is variance sick at 3-6 max tables 50/100 and above? Yes. Are you running bad only because of variance? No.


Funny thing is me and Hoss were talking how 2.5% of the people are going to run insanely hot, and 2.5% of the people are going to run insanely bad. Then there's the middle grounds and all.

I don't remember the exact figures but one can actually end up not winning a dime, being a 1BB/100 winner over a 100k hand stretch. I think it's safe to say very few people are actually squeezing out 1BB/100 to begin with, and so... If you're winning 0.5BB/100, then you can have a 200k hand break-even stretch...

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly appreciate the honesty, especially from a player whose game I respect as much as I do yours.

But a serious question: how do you know I'm playing tighter? I'm not saying I'm not, but how can you know? During this stretch my guess is that I was getting WAY fewer premium hands and I KNOW I was hitting no flops at all. So lots of folding preflop and on the flop without changing my game that much. So maybe I am still that idiot maniac (who by the way at least for the first several '000 hands was winning against you -- haven't checked recently).

Now, some players have adjusted to the way I play and I've adjusted back to take that into account. But I don't think my game is all that different from when I was (and am now again) winning 1+BB/100 at 100/200+.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

in all honestly (seriously) i don't know how you win money. maybe it's because your game is much better than mine and i'm missing something crucial.

i had to edit this post because it sounds sarcastic (especially that last bit) but i'm serious.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sad truth of the matter is, nobody who got the answers is going to give them to you since that'll directly impact their hourly rate.

Is variance sick at 3-6 max tables 50/100 and above? Yes. Are you running bad only because of variance? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, I know you think I'm a fish, Alex. Which is fine, I'm sure you're not alone.

But I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not looking for answers. I've managed to win 1+BB/100 over '00,000s of hands and I'm pretty sure that I'm a winning player in the games I play in. [Am I the best? Far from it. Do I have lots of room to improve? Absolutely. But based on observation and my results I believe that I'm among the best players, at least at 100/200]. I had NEVER had a losing month and never a dowswing more than 350BBs. But then, all of a sudden, without my game changing, I got destroyed over a relatively small # of hands. And then just as suddenly, starting winning boatloads again.

So, my conclusion: wicked variance. Variance of the degree that only a few posters have ever admitted to having. Is variance necessarily the cause? No, not necessarily. But all things considered it sure seems like it's by FAR the most likely.

That's all I was trying to share. And the reason I wanted to share it is that it may cause some people to think just a little differently about their game and about the game in general.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

hock, i appreciate you posting. variance is like drunk driving or aids. no one thinks it will happen to them.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Posts like this give me some comfort. After running at 1.5 for 140K hands at 5/10 to 15/30 then go on a 600BB downswing....not nice. I packed in and took up NL!

Ok - wrong forum but in principal it's the same. I too felt there was little tilt. Maybe between 200-300BB. Then an eerie sense of calm set in where the beats just had no affect.

I apologise if I shouldn't be posting in here. I've had afew drinks!

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the question has often been asked: How big a downswing can a solid, winning player expect to experience playing high stakes LHE? [500BBs? hahahaha]

[/ QUOTE ]

You should experience downswings of every size, 500BB, 1000BB, etc. If you have an edge, the bigger they are the less frequently they should occur. You just need to know if this is a once in a lifetime thing, a once in a year thing, once every ten year thing, etc.

If it is online play then the best explanation is that it is probably not bad luck or poor play, but cheating. Too many colluders, not enough fish. Player after player who was a long term winner is suddenly complaining that they don't win any more.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, yeah, I know you think I'm a fish, Alex. Which is fine, I'm sure you're not alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're definitely a winner. Calling you a fish is just something I do out of frustration at the tables [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Don't be fooled.

[ QUOTE ]

But I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not looking for answers. I've managed to win 1+BB/100 over '00,000s of hands and I'm pretty sure that I'm a winning player in the games I play in. [Am I the best? Far from it. Do I have lots of room to improve? Absolutely. But based on observation and my results I believe that I'm among the best players, at least at 100/200]. I had NEVER had a losing month and never a dowswing more than 350BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is key. Never a losing month? You got to be kidding. This is variance in YOUR favor bigtime. Now you just got a taste of what most others suffer through - months of break-even poker.


[ QUOTE ]

But then, all of a sudden, without my game changing, I got destroyed over a relatively small # of hands. And then just as suddenly, starting winning boatloads again.

So, my conclusion: wicked variance. Variance of the degree that only a few posters have ever admitted to having. Is variance necessarily the cause? No, not necessarily. But all things considered it sure seems like it's by FAR the most likely.

That's all I was trying to share. And the reason I wanted to share it is that it may cause some people to think just a little differently about their game and about the game in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post meant as an encouragement to those who think they suck, telling them to hang on, gotcha.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

What's your name on Stars?

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it is online play then the best explanation is that it is probably not bad luck or poor play, but cheating. Too many colluders, not enough fish. Player after player who was a long term winner is suddenly complaining that they don't win any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless someone's figured out how to collude to hit 2-outer after 2-outer against me, then I don't think that's the explanation.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
in all honestly (seriously) i don't know how you win money. maybe it's because your game is much better than mine and i'm missing something crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that it's hard to be a big winner if you're playing conventional 2+2 poker. The trick is to deviate in just the right ways. Most players view some of my "deviation" as retarded. I believe that it's often the key to my success. So, yeah, I'd say you're probably just missing something.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Hock,

I don't play the high stakes games and consequently what I have to say is limited to general comments on variance. There have been various posts of mathematical models of the variance associated with limit hold em. The basic gist of it is this:

If you win more than 2 BB/100, then you're unlikely to experience very many large downswings (say 500BB+). Indeed, even 200-300 BB downswings will be pretty rare, though they will happen.

If you win less than 1 BB/100, you will experience large downswings on a not infrequent basis (perhaps once every couple of months for people who play a lot of hands). If you're actual rate is at 1 BB/100, the variance will probably be tolerable [depending on how much running bad leads to tilt] but unpleasant at times. When your winrate drops below that appreciably (say 0.5 BB/100), the downswings will be pronounced and fairly frequent. The bankroll requirements for such a game are quite high, and I suspect many (if not most) people don't have the self-control to maintain the bankroll and tilt avoidance necessary to maintain that slim edge in the long term.

Personally, the biggest weakness in my game BY FAR is having my play deteriorate when I run bad. I'd much rather win, say 2 BB/100 in a 10/20 game than 1 BB/100 in a 30/60, even though the latter is more money (numbers picked for simplicity -- not my actual winrates), because I'd prefer to end more sessions in the green and avoid pronounced downswings.

As far as what to do about variance, if I were you, I would strongly consider the possibility that your winrate is around 0.5 BB/100. This is likely an underestimate, but it's worth at least considering the worst case scenarios. Do the math to see what your bankroll requirements are. Make sure you are financially prepared for the downswings that will happen again. (This means both having enough liquid assets available and the ability to fund your account in a reasonable amount of time as needed. You might already have this covered, but I thought it should mentioned as something everyone should do for their own situation.) And then brace yourself psychologically for running bad. Honestly assess how you dealt with it this past time. If you managed to play reasonably well, even though not your "A" game, that's pretty good in my opinion. In my personal experience, I have found that my "A" game has, on a handful of occassions, deteriorated to a "C" or "D" game, where I was playing at best breakeven poker. That has been my sign to be careful and measured whenever I move up in limits. It sounds like you don't have this problem; unfortunately, you are playing in games where giving up even smaller edges can squeeze your already (relatively) thin edge in the game overall.

My suspicion (which isn't worth much given my lack of experience) is that the long-term high stakes winners will come in two varieties:
(1) A few players who are just significantly better than the others [the best of the best, if you will] who have higher true winrates and experience less frequent and less pronounced downswings.
(2) A few very good players who manage to consistently play close to their "A" game and/or are very careful with their bankroll management.

I suspect that the edge in the game is thin enough that people who are wasteful with their winnings and capable of tilting when running awful (which could happen even to someone who plays tilt-free "most" of the time) will end up going broke even if they are winners. Even if the high limit games are not at this stage yet, their eventual evolution to this point seems like a foregone conclusion. (Of course, it's not clear *how fast* that evolution will take place, and I have no intuition for this.)

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's your name on Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in this as well, it seems as every time a thread comes up about a high stakes limit player on stars, daryn comes out to say how bad they suck except for a few maybe.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the question has often been asked: How big a downswing can a solid, winning player expect to experience playing high stakes LHE? [500BBs? hahahaha]

[/ QUOTE ]

You should experience downswings of every size, 500BB, 1000BB, etc. If you have an edge, the bigger they are the less frequently they should occur. You just need to know if this is a once in a lifetime thing, a once in a year thing, once every ten year thing, etc.

If it is online play then the best explanation is that it is probably not bad luck or poor play, but cheating. Too many colluders, not enough fish. Player after player who was a long term winner is suddenly complaining that they don't win any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm disappointed in you, after reading the initial post I was expecting you to post about collusion much sooner than you did.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Sorry, but I can't respond to that caveman avatar. It inspires too many jokes.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's your name on Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in this as well, it seems as every time a thread comes up about a high stakes limit player on stars, daryn comes out to say how bad they suck except for a few maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

iirc its not exactly a secret, pretty sure I knew it at one time. Dont remember anymore though. A search would turn it up.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

I'm normally the one suggesting that people overestimate variance. However, even I do not think there is really any doubt that playing 3-4 handed in medicore games is going to lead to huge variance (1k BB).

There is no doubt there is a huge difference in percieved variance between a win rate of 1.75 to 1ish.

I do not think you will find any players who play in tough 3-4 handed games that think a 1k BB downswing is not possible when playing well.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Hi doughnutz,

TanShuiWen here. You own me and you know it (i.e., I think you are one of the better players on PStars). So now that we got that out of the way here are my two cents...

I don't think much of incomplete data sets (such as that datamine of the players I saw a few months back, which I compared my own results with it and found, at least for myself, it was grossly off) - but just by playing with you for many many hands I'd say you are for sure a solid winning player. You have at minimum a standard understanding of the game (more than what can be said about most people), and most importantly you know how the conventional type of players play (the typical TAG, typical LAG, etc) and accordingly apply a lot of pressure post flop on boards that would give said type of players a real headache given the circumstances, regardless of your two cards. For that reason, I think you are one of the toughest players to play against out of position (I'm sure you've noticed I've taken the check-call line against you much more than normal).

But it's also for that reason that I think your variance is huge. I think you bank a lot of your game on things like 'well 40% of your hands here would do good against this flop but 60% of your hands won't' so you try to shoove people off of hands when you both miss. I think it's not a stretch to imagine that while this will aggregrate and converge in the long run point, it's probably multiple times more likely that you run into a 'crazy swing' compared to the typical player.

You are also a better player than me because in the middle of this downswing you appeared to still be able to play at a near-A game level. I can't say the same about myself - I think I been playing pretty poor at stretches during this last two weeks [while we're on that note, anyone have any advice on major holes to plug for me? : )].

I think you already know what to do and you're posting primarily to just let it out of your system. As I said in my post - your results are not typical of conventional 2p2 style, so it's not likely the typical readers of this board will experience what you experience. Alerting them to the subject of variance won't do much good overall. On the other hand if you're just looking for validation that *you* are just experiencing variance - my vote is with you.

~andy

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Thanks for the post.

You say:

[ QUOTE ]
But it's also for that reason that I think your variance is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the possibility that my style would result in increased variance definitely occurred to me. But the fact is that in the past I've actually had very manageable variance. I've never had a downswing of more than 350 BBs or so. Never a losing month. Since turning pro 10+mos ago I've never even had 3 losing days in a row (all until this stretch last month, that is). So I don't think that's it.

Of course, maybe I've just been the luckbox that everyone seems to think I am and that's the reason I haven't gotten clobbered before.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Hock,

What is your standard deviation 2 handed, 3 handed, 4 handed, 5-6 handed?

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

I only suggested your style as a cause to offer some alternative lines of thinking. It's good to see that you already considered it, but to provide another counter-point:

The old adage is 'if it's probable, it's possible'. Let's just assume (and this is a very generous given) that you didn't have variance in your favor and it was normal for you to never even had 3 losing days in a row, and the most you ever did was lose 2 days in a row for maybe a 350 BB down-stretch.

Even then - it is *still possible* to go on a run you did, or even worse. The worse the run, the more unlikely, but to drive the point home - still possible.

An event with .1% probability of occuring, occured. It was very unlikely, but it happened, and it can happen because it has just that, 1/1000 probability of occuring. Live and let live.

With that said, reality is usually harsher than the given we assumed here, so again - any kind of downswing or luckbox can be possible. I think I also am the perfect example of variance. I've also rarely had 3 consecutive sessions of losing (especially not at Party, I think Party kept God-mode on for me) for the past 2-3 years, and as most experts can probably attest to, it wasn't because of skill ; ) When I do go on sick downswings - I *know* for a fact that I'm compounding cold decked with bad play - so I got myself to blame.

Deep inside I think this is still bothering you! So for you - I'd still say just cheer up! Go out and do what else you enjoy doing for a while. You said you just turned pro 10 months ago, surely this justifies a deserved vacation. Go travel to a few places you never been to. NBA playoffs is going on - go watch a game while you're traveling. Golf some - read a book, enjoy the sun. Poker isn't everything, and in a week or two you'll be fully recharged and killing the game again and brush this off as a thing in the past. Just stop doing it at my expense and take it easy when you see a funny named donk (i.e., me) on your tables. I usually play poker after a hard day's work and sometimes you just run. me. over. : )

Peace,

~andy

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

I've had a 1080 BB swing before, and I assure you, I'm a winning player. [censored] happens. Barring that one disaster of disasters though, I don't think I've ever broken 600 (though I came quite close twice more as I recall).

Long story short, large swings can and will happen even to winners.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

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.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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 ]

I've seen you say this a few times and while I feel there is truth in what you say, I cannot bring myself to leave a game with bad players and I think it would be counterproductive to do so.

Now, given that I see you play in what I consider terrible games all the time where your EV cannot be large at all, even with your superior skills, it would most certainly be best to leave when losing and stay when winning to exploit the tilt of your opponents (as you often say you do).

Your game obviously works and I envy your lack of large swings, maybe I'll emulate your methodology a bit and see what happens.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is your standard deviation 2 handed, 3 handed, 4 handed, 5-6 handed?

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhh, if you tell me where I can find those numbers I'll post them.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen you post this point before and I think it's right. I'm very competitive and hate to lose, and sometimes that leads me to chase losses even when the conditions aren't conducive.

I'm curious, though, what you mean by [ QUOTE ]
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.'

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember right, you've said before that you will put more pressure on players who are running bad. But for me, at least, when I'm running bad I usually feel like players are trying to run over me (which may just be a function of the fact that everyone's hitting) and I'll be slightly more likely to call down with marginal hands, which would counter increased aggression against me.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is your standard deviation 2 handed, 3 handed, 4 handed, 5-6 handed?

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhh, if you tell me where I can find those numbers I'll post them.

[/ QUOTE ]


You can find STD DEV in PT, sessions tab, more detail... I'm guessing you would filter in preferences to get the appropriate information, but not sure if the filter actually applies to that screen as it does not to all of them.

** EDIT ** The method I described does NOT work. It's only your aggregate STD DEV of all hands played and is only filtered by date. Not sure how one would get stats for HU/3h/etc

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deep inside I think this is still bothering you! So for you - I'd still say just cheer up!

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the advice, but frankly the +$130k run I've been on the last 3+ weeks has done most of the job in cheering me up. I'd be lying if I said that the downswing didn't shake me a little, but I feel MUCH better now.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ 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 ]

wow you just articulated my mentality very well there I play redic short sessions play my best game poss to have fun with you guys and then leave after a bit because you will adjust 10x faster then me.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

This is why I never made it online. I won, but felt it wasn't worth the swings and prolonged flat periods. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you guys who just put your head down and plod your way through these swings.

I think it's because some of you know no different. Maybe you started online and don't know what it's like to play in softer live games where a downswing approaching 200bb's is cause for contemplating suicide.

Yep, that was my problem. I was never able to get used to these swings. I assumed that 300bb downturns and +60k flat streaks meant I must not have an edge (that, or I was being cheated). Nevermind that I won 1000bb's just prior.

In a way, I look to you guys as the pioneers of a new game of poker. Paving the way for others. Many like myself, have not made it, because we were unwilling to enter the uncharted waters of 1000bb downswings. Kind of like Columbus. How long are you willing to keep on sailing before giving up? But you guys have done it and shown it's possible to weather these swings and still do well. My game has certainly improved because of online. Although, I'm still not sure I have the stomach for it.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That is impressive, because I'm pretty sure I played with you at the Commerce a few months ago and remember thinking you have a very high variance style.

Don't get me wrong, I was very impressed with your game, but you seem to create bloated pots, which necessitate you making river payoffs that other good players don't have to make. If it was in fact you, I remember some payoffs you made that I thought were really poor until realizing the price you were getting on the river.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. Just that it's impressive you haven't had any slides more than 400bb's online. You seem to have a pretty open game so it attests to how well you must play.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

"That is impressive, because I'm pretty sure I played with you at the Commerce a few months ago and remember thinking you have a very high variance style.
"

the concept of one style being more high variance than another strikes me as totally bogus. the fact is, your edge in a game determines how much variance you incur. if schneids is doing things like bloating pots but plays that game at a true winrate of 2bb/100, he'll have much less variance than a more conservative and passive player whose true winrate is 1.5bb/100.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

schneids, didn't you have a downswing that was over 500bb when you first moved up to 15/30?

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"That is impressive, because I'm pretty sure I played with you at the Commerce a few months ago and remember thinking you have a very high variance style.
"

the concept of one style being more high variance than another strikes me as totally bogus. the fact is, your edge in a game determines how much variance you incur. if schneids is doing things like bloating pots but plays that game at a true winrate of 2bb/100, he'll have much less variance than a more conservative and passive player whose true winrate is 1.5bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2bb/100 won't have less variance. He'll have more variance, as you describe his play. But he might not notice it as much in terms of prolonged downswings, etc. since he has more of a cushion to work from.

Different styles of play definitely have different concomitant variance. To conclude otherwise is to fly in the face of both the facts and common sense. Someone who plays 40% of his hands in a 6-max game is going to have more variance than someone who plays 25% of his hands since the variance from folding a hand is zero. By the same token, someone who puts more bets in on average after the flop is going to have more variance than someone who tends to play fit-or-fold (though sometimes players who play passively can have fairly high variance since they tend to put a lot of bets in, just not all at once).