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]
[/image]
Next, in dollars:
[image]
[/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]
[/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.