#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
I like the thought and the work you put into this, but the sd you choose its a little more than usual, I think generally after 100K hands a winning or loosing player is about +/- 1PTBB/100 of their actual WR.... and it take alot more than luck for a -2ptbb/100 losing player to be break even after these many hands IMO
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
[ QUOTE ]
I like the thought and the work you put into this, but the sd you choose its a little more than usual, I think generally after 100K hands a winning or loosing player is about +/- 1PTBB/100 of their actual WR.... and it take alot more than luck for a -2ptbb/100 losing player to be break even after these many hands IMO [/ QUOTE ] See my response above to a similar statement. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
not arguing one way or the other, but this is from my database
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
where do you find that in PT?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
[ QUOTE ]
where do you find that in PT? [/ QUOTE ] sessions tab >>>> more detail |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
A couple of people now have commented on the STDDEV being off so I thought I would do another graph.
Even if we change the STDDEV to 40 ptBB/100 insane things can happen. This is the 5ptBB/100 player over 6,500 hands. http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.jpg I'm not trying to say this extreme swings are likely to happen, only possible. The initial post was meant to say "hey, if you are running bad over a few 1000 hands, don't immediately think you suck and if you run crazy hot over a few 1000 hands don't come to the forums thinking you are God's gift to poker" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
Solid thought process here. I really don't even care to see one updated with a different SD or winrate. I mean, when you're playing something like 8+ tables, these things could vary dramatically from table to table.
I do believe online playing has really opened the eyes of the poker world to the true beast the games is. I remember a few years ago reading some of the first books of the 2+2 authors and chuckling about some of the things I read. It was obvious that the phenomenon of a stretch of 100,000 hands hadn't even been touched at that point. I mean, to think of how long it would take to play that many hands live is stupid. Then to think about being a live pro is just as stupid. You should be independently wealthy already. I often wonder how many truly talented players quit playing live because they thought they couldn't beat the game after 6 months or whatever....and of course, visa versa. However, they only played the number of hands some of us play in a week. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance in poker: Living with the Beast
[ QUOTE ]
A couple of people now have commented on the STDDEV being off so I thought I would do another graph. Even if we change the STDDEV to 40 ptBB/100 insane things can happen. This is the 5ptBB/100 player over 6,500 hands. http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.jpg I'm not trying to say this extreme swings are likely to happen, only possible. The initial post was meant to say "hey, if you are running bad over a few 1000 hands, don't immediately think you suck and if you run crazy hot over a few 1000 hands don't come to the forums thinking you are God's gift to poker" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, the link was invalid. Here it is for those intersted: http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.JPG |
|
|