Party Poker, 50NL, and the state of things - Page 10

Vyse · #91 06-08-2007, 06:08 PM

Ama was saying, at 50 NL and below, BI of 17+ are never the result of JUST variance. So all we need is one exception to prove him wrong, making your "more likely to see..." statement totally irrelevant.

Triggerle · #92 06-08-2007, 06:09 PM

Well, I'm break-even with AA/KK/QQ after 15k hands. Since these, especially the first two, are not that difficult to play that alone hints toward a rough strech. Or I totally suck and can't even get AA right.

Vyse · #93 06-08-2007, 06:12 PM

I've seen you play. Don't discount the latter option.

Triggerle · #94 06-08-2007, 06:14 PM

I last played on FT a long time ago if that is where you saw me. I have improved a lot since then.

Vyse · #95 06-08-2007, 06:18 PM

I was kidding.

tarheeljks · #96 06-08-2007, 06:23 PM

this doesn't render my statement irrelevant b/c i'm not talking about whether or not it's "possible." my posts have not been defending his statement that long downswings "are never the result of just variance." i disagree w/that specific statement, but i agree with the point he's trying to make.

Triggerle · #97 06-08-2007, 06:27 PM

There's no doubt that many things he said in the OP are undeniably right. I only take offense to the blanket statement, especially as he singled me out as likely to be absolutely delusional about my abilities.

tarheeljks · #98 06-08-2007, 06:36 PM

i understand why you would take offense to being called out. if you asked him again, he would probably back off the idea that it is impossible to run that badly that long, esp if you offered some proof. however, at the same time i understand why he would be skeptical that a 17 bi downswing would be due to running poorly. i haven't seen all of your hh's, but if it most of them are like the 2nd hand you posted (A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] vs. 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]) there is no need to take it personally b/c it doesnt apply to you.

Triggerle · #99 06-08-2007, 06:42 PM

The thing is that this is a marginal play against most opponents but the right play against someone who goes to the felt in every hand.

I didn't feel like pointing out specifics to defend myself, though, because such a blanket statement is mathematically false either way.

derosnec · #**100** 06-08-2007, 07:45 PM

i've had downswings, but looking back at each one, there was no reason for me to lose more than 7 BIs top (and i've played hundreds of thousands of hands). each time it was because of table selection, dumb bluffs, getting fed up with c/rs of c-bets, pushing draws when i had no FE, being stupid with top pair on coordinated boards, etc. i'd say coolers/suckouts were at most 7 BIs of each downswing.

you guys want to see variance? play HU SNG turbos. where you are down to 10 to 15 BB stacks within a few minutes. i've played over 1,000 of those and never had more than a 7 BI downswing. with 100 BBs in a cash game there really shouldn't be a DS of more than 7 (or 10 whatever) BIs at micros where everyone plays their hands predictably.