|
|
|
|
#1
12-22-2006, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
variance or I\'m not good enough?
Been playing on-line limit hold'em a couple months now, played a lot of stud and some hold'em at Foxwoods in mid-late 90's before married w/ kids, just discovered the world of on-line and made my foray back into poker. Read SSHE couple times, follow this board daily, I seem to be knowledgeable, I'm thinking similar to experienced posters, when I'm disagreeing with someone's response usually others are also and there's a debate, so no clear answer. I play a solid TAG game, 17.8/8.6/2.1, which, given stats on some opponents, I would expect to lead to about a 1-2 BB/100 return at .5-1. Getting to 2-4 BB/100 I would expect would take more experience and maybe more expert post-flop play than I currently have. However, I am down 113BB over 6500 hands of .5/1 at full tilt. I have seen plenty of posts where a 150 BB downswing is not unheard of, but it seems like this is a shorter term thing, someone had a few bad sessions. 6500 hands seems to long to be down 113. If I add in my last 1000 hands at Pokerstars of -45BB I am down 148BB over 7500 hands. Has such an extended down streak happened to any good players?
Note: I don't think I suck - my first 1000 hands of .5-1 at PS I was up 140BB, and I started with .25-.50 at PS and won was up 170BB in 4000 hands before I moved up. So I was up 310BB in 5000 hands. I am looking for confirmation that, yes, a solid player can lose 148BB over 7500 hands, or, no, if you are losing 148BB over 7500 hands you are doing something majorly wrong and you got lucky to be up 310BB your first 5000 hands. FWIW other stats are wonsawflop% 45.2, showdownswon% 52.1, att steal blinds 36%, fold sb/bb to steal 85/75, std dev 15.74/100. My PFR goes from 6 to 14 by position. I follow the SSHE tight hands chart in general, but I always raise any otherwise playable hand if first in from HJ or later, and ISO-raise high VPIP's with anything otherwise playable, and raise first in on button with any top 50% hand. I know the games are tougher than they used to be, I started just after legislation passed, but still given the stats on some players I would think .5-1 s/b beatable by the way I'm playing. All comments are greatly appreciated. You young guys are living in a great time, 20 years ago when I was in college you could get guys in your dorm to play poker once in a while, but once you cleaned everyone out of the $15-20 they were willing to lose you were done. Maybe 1-2 times a semester you could get a game. 
|
|
#4
12-22-2006, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: variance or I\'m not good enough?
Standard deviation is from Pokeroffice, which provides as std dev/hr of 10.55, elsewhere is hands/hour of 67. I usually see std dev as per 100 so 10.55/.67 = 15.74/100. Interestingly, in variance discussions I usually see people using 15BB/100 as assumed std dev, with the statement 'that is typical for a good player', which makes me glad mine is close to that. And yes, I know sample size is quite small for a std dev calc.
|
|
#7
12-22-2006, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: variance or I\'m not good enough?
[ QUOTE ]
Cool. PokerTracker dont have that. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Wanna bet? 1. Go to ring games statistics or whatever it is called. 2. Click the "Session Notes"-tab. 3. Click "More Details". 4. Rejoice.
|
|
#9
12-22-2006, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: variance or I\'m not good enough?
anybody who posts one of these and is serious about it is not experiencing variance... you most likely are not good enough. Edit to add, people who post these stupid posts don't understand the complexity of poker. We cannot magically give you answers to why your game blows as much as it does. It's on an individual basis. Telling us numbers mean nothing... it's how you play hands that really get into why you suck.
|
|
#10
12-22-2006, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: variance or I\'m not good enough?
[ QUOTE ]
anybody who posts one of these and is serious about it is not experiencing variance... you most likely are not good enough. Edit to add, people who post these stupid posts don't understand the complexity of poker. We cannot magically give you answers to why your game blows as much as it does. It's on an individual basis. Telling us numbers mean nothing... it's how you play hands that really get into why you suck. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not looking for reasons why I'm not good, I'm well aware you can't tell that from a few stats. The question is, based on stats that indicate I am in the TAG range and not some fish, do you think -150 over 7500 hands could be variance or do I have a major problem. I would love for someone who is, say, +2BB/100 over 100k to point out they have had a few -150BB over 7500 hand swings in their 100k hands. Or, to point out they have never been negative over anything more than 5k hands. Either way, I'll have a better idea about how likely it is that this is variance.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
