Raptor had a 1200 break even run. LC.

[The once and future king]

We had a little debate recently about how long it was possible to break even over. I claimed that every player will break even over a 1000 sngs if they play long enough. This is probably slightly mistaken but I think the number one can expect to break even over at some point is not that much less than this even at lower limits. Raptor claims in BBV to have broken even over 1200 sngs. In relation to this is the fact that one can run hot as a hot thing for very long periods.

I think peoples opionions on bad runs and variance is as one would expect totaly related to their experiences with negative variance. If they havnt experienced it they dont believe it possible or doubt that varaince could lead to certain results without a big tilt factor. I know I used to.I used to read reports of bad runs and think meh that person must suck. Now I know better. Not that I have expereinced full brutality of break even over a 1000 but have come relatively close. Close enough to know its possiblt without a great amount of tilt on the players behalf. However to counter my own arguement slighlty because I am a fair minded guy, I will say that it is fair to say that every bad run is excerbated to some degree by a players reaction to it. However I still think that those who havnt had the bad run of gangor will over estimate player contribution to reports of truely bad runs.

People seem to greatly underestimate the if it can happen it will happen aspect of pounding out random events in large quantities.

If some reason you dont like this thread, email party support and tell them that Server Restarts give OAFK to much time to talk [censored].

[recondite7]

I agree with you on this to some degree. If someone is a 30% roi at 11's maybe not but for 6-8% roi at higher limits mixed in with a little (not a lot) of tilt can make for break even poker. When I started playing on the skins back in the day I would play half my games on eurobet and half on empire and I was 9%roi on euro and 39% on empire for about 500 games a piece on each. My game did not change and my name was very similar on both sites. If this can happen for me when i'm playing around 25% roi i'm sure breakeven poker is possible over 1000 sngs for higher limit players or low limit players with roi's in the 10-15% range.

[miami32]

When I started playing the 109s way back when I started out ridiculously hot. I think I made 7 grand or something through my first 100 of them. I thought it was cake. After that I went through I think my worst downswing to date. I think I broke even at about 400 or so and I had a 30 buy in downswing. I wanted to kill myself. I had just recently met duece2high and he told me he broke even at 500 STTS as well. Granted at the time, I thought he was full of [censored] but now I believe it. These runs happen. They happen to the best of us. In all honesty though, I really doubt anyone would ever break even over 500 at anything below the party 55s. The games are just too soft.

[KlumsySmurf]

[ QUOTE ]
In all honesty though, I really doubt anyone would ever break even over 500 at anything below the party 55s. The games are just too soft.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, I believe a good player can have a high enough roi (15%+) at anything below 55's to make these types of downswings near impossible barring tilt induced unsmurfiness.

Variance can still be nasty, as 6 months ago I went on a nice 30 buy-in downswing at the 22's and I'll never forget how that felt. But I also believe that a lot of people who go on these types of downswings won't admit how much tilting amplified their bad runs, and trick themselves into thinking they played their A or B game the whole time. As for myself, I played my A or B game the whole time, as I'm un-tiltable.

Except maybe when I'm drunk, or on a downswing.

[Melchiades]

I think most of the time in discussions like this, when people don't believe a bad run over 1000 should be possible at the 16's or 27's or whatever it is because it is higly unlikely with a ROI of 25%'ish. Which is def possible at those limits. So if you run 1000 break even at the 16/27's chances are pretty big that you have some decent leaks.

If your ROI is below 10%, you are still a winning player. But the chances for brutal downswings and break even runs increases dramatically.

So if someone says they just run even over the last 1000 16's they played, I'm always gonna assume it is partly because of some bad play (bad play meaning non-optimal play, not that they are a losing player).

[wpr101]

I've broke even lost over a stretch of 800+ games before. Just look at my sharkscope chart if you want to see something pathetic.

I know I am a winning player. Or atleast that's what I tell myself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[wahooriver]

Logically this makes sense. Playing primarily 6 handed, I understand that my ROI is a function of heads up play. If I win coin flips, then I have a great ROI. If I lose them, my ROI decreases markedly. The past 2 weeks I feel that I have lost more than my share of all-ins (including AA against KK while flopping a set - obviously a flush beat me).

Coming in 2nd more often than 1st over the short run (even when you play the hands properly) will have a dramatic effect.

For this reason, we should not use ROI to judge our play, but rather other stats like bubble play (ITM), and ability to get to the bubble. I cannot control coin flips. I usually can control getting to coin flips.

[Melchiades]

Wtf. We should obviously use ROI to judge our play. We just need a proper sample size.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Wtf. We should obviously use ROI to judge our play. We just need a proper sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sample size needed to distinguish between a big winner and a breakeven player is pretty large though, isn't it? This doesn't really seem like the best way to assess your game short term. I'm not sure there is a good statistical way to do so; I think there's little substitute for looking at hands.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
Logically this makes sense. Playing primarily 6 handed, I understand that my ROI is a function of heads up play. If I win coin flips, then I have a great ROI. If I lose them, my ROI decreases markedly. The past 2 weeks I feel that I have lost more than my share of all-ins (including AA against KK while flopping a set - obviously a flush beat me).

Coming in 2nd more often than 1st over the short run (even when you play the hands properly) will have a dramatic effect.

For this reason, we should not use ROI to judge our play, but rather other stats like bubble play (ITM), and ability to get to the bubble. I cannot control coin flips. I usually can control getting to coin flips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the worst thing I've heard about sit and gos.