Official SSSH LC/NC Thread for October!

[NinaWilliams]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
omg did you really play 22k hands at .5/1 and lose 350bb?

[/ QUOTE ]

He called down with t-high and it was good. You can't question that kind of genius.

Seriously abs,

You need someone to watch you play or something. Losing 350 at .5/1 is indicative of big big holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this post is irritating and ridiculous. Maybe that was the point.

About the T8 hand. When I stoved it, it turned out I was 2.7-1 to win against a random hand when I got to the turn, but I wasn't calling any river. I was 5-2 to call down, or 2.5-1. So, at the table I slightly overestimated my odds, although, like I said, I wasn't automatically calling down, but the river was good for me. As for the context of the hand, the guy was drunk or blowing off steam. He had a random hand here and later bought in for 10K at a 0.5/1 table.

About the graph. It is actually 0.5/1-3/6, with the last 15K or so being 0.5/1 (or about 150BB downswing.) But, seriously, to assume that you have to be playing at a certain level to justify a downswing indicates big big holes in your thinking. You might want to read some posts on stats or 'the long run.' I agree, that below 0.25/0.5 you shouldn't experience big downswings due to the players and the small rake, but any game with a significant rake and a player pool of aggressive (not necessarily good, but aggressive and high variance) players is going to lead to downswings.

I've had 300BB downswings before despite being a winner overall. But gee, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to have significant downswings before mid stakes. I'll have to stick to the small stakes until I stop having downswings.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure you already know this, but what he was saying has nothing to do with the stakes, but more the level of play at those stakes. Hes saying that a .5/1 player's edge should be so big that a 350bb downer is extremely rare. If you were playing .5/1 with a group of 2p2ers for example, 350bb downswings would be fairly common.

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
omg did you really play 22k hands at .5/1 and lose 350bb?

[/ QUOTE ]

He called down with t-high and it was good. You can't question that kind of genius.

Seriously abs,

You need someone to watch you play or something. Losing 350 at .5/1 is indicative of big big holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this post is irritating and ridiculous. Maybe that was the point.

About the T8 hand. When I stoved it, it turned out I was 2.7-1 to win against a random hand when I got to the turn, but I wasn't calling any river. I was 5-2 to call down, or 2.5-1. So, at the table I slightly overestimated my odds, although, like I said, I wasn't automatically calling down, but the river was good for me. As for the context of the hand, the guy was drunk or blowing off steam. He had a random hand here and later bought in for 10K at a 0.5/1 table.

About the graph. It is actually 0.5/1-3/6, with the last 15K or so being 0.5/1 (or about 150BB downswing.) But, seriously, to assume that you have to be playing at a certain level to justify a downswing indicates big big holes in your thinking. You might want to read some posts on stats or 'the long run.' I agree, that below 0.25/0.5 you shouldn't experience big downswings due to the players and the small rake, but any game with a significant rake and a player pool of aggressive (not necessarily good, but aggressive and high variance) players is going to lead to downswings.

I've had 300BB downswings before despite being a winner overall. But gee, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to have significant downswings before mid stakes. I'll have to stick to the small stakes until I stop having downswings.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure you already know this, but what he was saying has nothing to do with the stakes, but more the level of play at those stakes. Hes saying that a .5/1 player's edge should be so big that a 350bb downer is extremely rare. If you were playing .5/1 with a group of 2p2ers for example, 350bb downswings would be fairly common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand that, but I don't think being 2+2 is a necessity for causing high variance.

[yourface]

LATE NIGHT DRUNKEN RALLEY WOOO



from hands > 570 of course

too bad it was mostly at 1/2 the stakes, actually a 3bb/100 winner for this sess

[bosh]

Had a very drunk shot at 5/10 the other night. Cant really remember it but up 12BB lol. Seemed to have played alright looking over the hands, more aggro than i usually am.

What do you think of this hand? Something that i never do at 1/2.

Party Poker
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
6 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
<font color="#cc0000">UTG raises</font>, 4 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (4.4SB, 2 players)
Hero checks, <font color="#cc0000">UTG bets</font>, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (4.2BB, 2 players)
<font color="#cc0000">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

River: J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (6.2BB, 2 players)
<font color="#cc0000">Hero bets</font>, UTG folds.
Uncalled bets: 1BB returned to Hero.

Results:
Final pot: 6.2BB

[Tryptamean]

[ QUOTE ]
LATE NIGHT DRUNKEN RALLEY WOOO



from hands &gt; 570 of course

too bad it was mostly at 1/2 the stakes, actually a 3bb/100 winner for this sess

[/ QUOTE ]

dude ur sposed to move UP to chase losses

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]

But, seriously, to assume that you have to be playing at a certain level to justify a downswing indicates big big holes in your thinking. You might want to read some posts on stats or 'the long run.'


[/ QUOTE ]

Bayesian reasoning indicates that given this graph, it's far more likely for you to have had a small edge / no edge / negative edge during this period vs. having a large edge and being on an unlucky string of variance.

It may be due to the huge rake (I imagine it's pretty big at .5/1), or holes in your game. (Probably both.)

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, seriously, to assume that you have to be playing at a certain level to justify a downswing indicates big big holes in your thinking. You might want to read some posts on stats or 'the long run.'


[/ QUOTE ]

Bayesian reasoning indicates that given this graph, it's far more likely for you to have had a small edge / no edge / negative edge during this period vs. having a large edge and being on an unlucky string of variance.

It may be due to the huge rake (I imagine it's pretty big at .5/1), or holes in your game. (Probably both.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that I play perfectly in every hand, it must be the rake.

[inferno]

anybody gonna play the hula?

[yourface]

1k is too rich for my blood

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
1k is too rich for my blood considering that I suck at HUHU

[/ QUOTE ]