The variance in Party 5/10 (6-max)

[pshabi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won approx 2BB/100 after 60,000 hands of 3/6 SH.After 35,000 hands of 5/10 SH,I was down about 320 BB and it nearly killed me.In the following 12,000 hands I won 520 BB.5000 hands later I am up a total of .16 BB after approx 50,000 hands.
The only redeeming factor is that I am retired and the money is insignificant

[/ QUOTE ]

If the money is insignificant, how did it 'nearly kill' you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Personal pride and competitive desire to not get your ass handed to you in a game? Just a guess...

[Faststan]

It nearly killed me because losing day after day totally shook my confidence and made poker no fun.
I take the game seriously(10,000-15,000 hands per month),intend to move up quickly,and poker is absolutely my main source of entertainment.

[Flintoff]

[ QUOTE ]
It nearly killed me because losing day after day totally shook my confidence and made poker no fun.
I take the game seriously(10,000-15,000 hands per month),intend to move up quickly,and poker is absolutely my main source of entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez - if you have no money worries and are retired go on a world cruise or something. Live life man!

[That Fish]

I'm -630 BB running at -1.25BB/100 at 3/6, break even at 5/10. Go figure.

<insert YSSCKY or 'You suck @ poker' comment here>

I had a session this weekend with the following stats:
VPiP = 30
PFR = 17
W$SF = 40.5
WTSD = 34
W$@SD = 52
-50BB/800 hands...

I estimate 10-20% of my current slide to be mistakes/sucking in the blinds/leaks/tilt etc..

The rest is being an 80%+ favorite on the turn and losing 10 in a row kind of stuff. LAGs calling with just the right hands so that turn cards give them 8 extra outs (which they then hit).

The worst part, more than the actual suckouts, is the LAGs never seem to have hands when I have one and when I bet they all fold. If I slowplay they suck out. When I bluff/semibluff they all call. So I have the pleasure of winning small pots and losing large ones.

Lots of really large pflop advantages that go the wrong way, things like AK vs KQ, A7 vs A6, you get the idea.
Oh, and getting in blind battles with TAGs when I'm the one with AQ and they have AK is nice too...

So to answer the question on variance, yes, there is a lot, and it comes in many different forms, optimized to magnify whatever tilt tendencies you might have and thwart identifying what leaks you need to plug.

[bobhalford]

I basically go 50-150 BB's up or down every session I play of 6-max (3-tabling). This is pretty intense variance.

I began with my 1st 20K hands at 7BB/100. I thought I must be a great player until I lost 430BB's. This was pretty difficult to stomach, but I resolved to improve my game.

In general, I see a lot of posts here by people worried about their winrates. I gave up thinking about this because I really don't have any way of knowing how unlucky I've been. All I can do is try and play the best poker I can.

To do this, I've reduced the # of tables from 4-5 to 3. I've also decided to turn off the tv and just use my ipod. I vigorously take notes and observe my opponents. I think my play has improved quite a bit since I've made these changes.

I used to use Tiltblocker, because I was always monitoring my progress throughout a session, and I think it distracted me from playing well. Now I don't use it because I sense that my opponents are aware of my winning or losing, and I should be aware of it too. However, Tiltblocker does make for a stress-free poker session. I never know how bad or good I'm running until the session is over.

[PotLuckPete]

That's what happens when you're on a 14 hour gaming session and decide to post on the tail end hehe

You're absolutely right, I meant to say "accumulated small edges".

[PotLuckPete]

I'm not a "poker mathematician" but here's my basic understanding. Standard deviation is basically a mean of a mean, or how tightly grouped around the mean in a set of data. First deviation out accounts for 68 percent of the time, two deviations out 95 and 3 - 99.

We can take our winrate and standard deviation and come up with something like:

95 percent of the time my winrate should be between $x and $y (2 deviations out). You can even add confidence levels to this formula (the guys in the probabilty messageboard were helping me through this).

Now, the problem is, your the convergence of your winrate takes so many 'freaking hands' it's really hard to say with any confidence without a good chunk.

Sometimes increasing your winrate will also increase the SD because you're taking more risks etc..

Math guys, feel free to correct but don't kill me.. still learning [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MrWookie]

freshjuuuiice,

If you're going to make any claims about your win rate, you need to at the very least offer up your sample size. I wouldn't mind seeing a graph (pokerpatterns.com).

[PotLuckPete]

Woookie,

Does my SD,Winrate and Conf.Level explaination seem on track?

[MrWookie]

Yes, that's pretty standard. However, as has been oberved in another post I saw in MHSH, I think, the distribution of the number of BB you win in a given 100 hand block does not follow a Gaussian distribution, so your methodology is only an approximation.