A Good BB/100 at 100NL FR

[RyanCMU]

[ QUOTE ]
I just dont get it. I have heard many ppl say they have experienced 10 to 15 buy-in downswings while playing NL25 through NL200. The WORST downswing I ever had was 4 buy-ins down and I started to recoop it immediately in following days.

I really feel that there are so many mistake-ridden, bad players at these levels that if you DONT go on tilt and start making mistakes of your own that it is virtually impossible to swing down that much... unless of course you have major leaks in your game. Any solid NLHe player shouldnt swing more than 5 buy-ins down at any time because the opposition simply plays too badly for you to lose any more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious...

[D.L.M.]

That is rediculous. this dude doesnt know anything

[chicken10der]

He's a new guy with 30k hands, cut him some slack.

Nice score in the Iron Man freeroll, hat.

[threads13]

Here are some links I found on this.

Wookie's stuff is found in the "Moving Up in Limits" section

Here is some good stuff from Homer as well that covers the same stuff.

Both of these are things that are discussed in this thread, but it is always nice to read well-written threads.

[MrWookie]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some links I found on this.

Wookie's stuff is found in the "Moving Up in Limits" section

[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of that post is horribly out of date, but the last part is a good approximation. It's still an approximation, though, since the distribution of the total number of BB you win in 100 hands is not Gaussian. It's actually a skewed distribution with the peak below your avg. win rate, but a big long tail into the large win rates, at least for limit. NL might be a little different, but I don't think it would be by too much. Actually, IIRC, it may have been most probable to lose slightly for 100 hands, but the fact that you can win so big makes up for it. This was based on Josh.'s (IIRC) 1M-ish hand database -- he had a thread in one of the higher stakes limit forums: MHSH, MSLHE, or HSLHE. As you look at a BB/1000 or a BB/5000 or BB/10000, the distribution of BB you win over the specified sample gets more and more Gaussian, but we didn't have a 100M hand database to really know where things really got Gaussian.

With this in mind, if you were to calculate the probability that you're a winning player using the method I outlined in that thread, it will tend to be an overestimate. Given the skewed nature of the distribution, there's more area under the curve (more probability) on the low end than the Gaussian approximation gives credit for. I don't think there's a specific mathematically-motivated probability distribution that would better describe BB/100 data, but I'm not totally sure on that one. With a truly massive database (10-100M hands), we could probably come up with a good guess for one heuristically by just trying a bunch of curve fits and seeing which ones work best. Such a curve would probably use fit parameters that weren't exactly the mean and SD we pull out of PT, but we would probably be able to derive some formulas to convert the usual mean and SD into the fit parameters of this curve. Anyway doing this is out of reach for me at the moment given how (comparatively) little poker I play. Also, you kinda have to wonder just how much merit getting an extra significant figure on the confidence you have that you are a winning player is worth.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some links I found on this.

Wookie's stuff is found in the "Moving Up in Limits" section

[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of that post is horribly out of date, but the last part is a good approximation. It's still an approximation, though, since the distribution of the total number of BB you win in 100 hands is not Gaussian. It's actually a skewed distribution with the peak below your avg. win rate, but a big long tail into the large win rates, at least for limit. NL might be a little different, but I don't think it would be by too much. Actually, IIRC, it may have been most probable to lose slightly for 100 hands, but the fact that you can win so big makes up for it. This was based on Josh.'s (IIRC) 1M-ish hand database -- he had a thread in one of the higher stakes limit forums: MHSH, MSLHE, or HSLHE. As you look at a BB/1000 or a BB/5000 or BB/10000, the distribution of BB you win over the specified sample gets more and more Gaussian, but we didn't have a 100M hand database to really know where things really got Gaussian.

With this in mind, if you were to calculate the probability that you're a winning player using the method I outlined in that thread, it will tend to be an overestimate. Given the skewed nature of the distribution, there's more area under the curve (more probability) on the low end than the Gaussian approximation gives credit for. I don't think there's a specific mathematically-motivated probability distribution that would better describe BB/100 data, but I'm not totally sure on that one. With a truly massive database (10-100M hands), we could probably come up with a good guess for one heuristically by just trying a bunch of curve fits and seeing which ones work best. Such a curve would probably use fit parameters that weren't exactly the mean and SD we pull out of PT, but we would probably be able to derive some formulas to convert the usual mean and SD into the fit parameters of this curve. Anyway doing this is out of reach for me at the moment given how (comparatively) little poker I play. Also, you kinda have to wonder just how much merit getting an extra significant figure on the confidence you have that you are a winning player is worth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gaussian = Normal for those more familiar with that term

[D.L.M.]

i thought gassuin came up with that really gay long way of solving matrices? o well im retarded

[checkmate36]

[ QUOTE ]
I just dont get it. I have heard many ppl say they have experienced 10 to 15 buy-in downswings while playing NL25 through NL200. The WORST downswing I ever had was 4 buy-ins down and I started to recoop it immediately in following days.

I really feel that there are so many mistake-ridden, bad players at these levels that if you DONT go on tilt and start making mistakes of your own that it is virtually impossible to swing down that much... unless of course you have major leaks in your game. Any solid NLHe player shouldnt swing more than 5 buy-ins down at any time because the opposition simply plays too badly for you to lose any more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Looks like the discussion is breaking down on us.

[JimmytheHat19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just dont get it. I have heard many ppl say they have experienced 10 to 15 buy-in downswings while playing NL25 through NL200. The WORST downswing I ever had was 4 buy-ins down and I started to recoop it immediately in following days.

I really feel that there are so many mistake-ridden, bad players at these levels that if you DONT go on tilt and start making mistakes of your own that it is virtually impossible to swing down that much... unless of course you have major leaks in your game. Any solid NLHe player shouldnt swing more than 5 buy-ins down at any time because the opposition simply plays too badly for you to lose any more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have less downswings because you're the nittiest nit of all time. You give up on a lot of +EV high-variance spots. Many people have dowsnwings 3x worse than you, and win rates twice as high as you.

[/ QUOTE ]


For some reason I was under the impression that most ppl here wouldnt know me... I'm a small time grinder... I cant believe some of these comments.

What is wrong with being "nittiest nit of all time" if it fetches me steady profit? I dont have horrible downswings, which is good considering I have a pretty fragile psyche when it comes to losing a lot.

And anyway, you seem to know me or my numbers... so just who are you?

[Steelerman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just dont get it. I have heard many ppl say they have experienced 10 to 15 buy-in downswings while playing NL25 through NL200. The WORST downswing I ever had was 4 buy-ins down and I started to recoop it immediately in following days.

I really feel that there are so many mistake-ridden, bad players at these levels that if you DONT go on tilt and start making mistakes of your own that it is virtually impossible to swing down that much... unless of course you have major leaks in your game. Any solid NLHe player shouldnt swing more than 5 buy-ins down at any time because the opposition simply plays too badly for you to lose any more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have less downswings because you're the nittiest nit of all time. You give up on a lot of +EV high-variance spots. Many people have dowsnwings 3x worse than you, and win rates twice as high as you.

[/ QUOTE ]


For some reason I was under the impression that most ppl here wouldnt know me... I'm a small time grinder... I cant believe some of these comments.

What is wrong with being "nittiest nit of all time" if it fetches me steady profit? I dont have horrible downswings, which is good considering I have a pretty fragile psyche when it comes to losing a lot.

And anyway, you seem to know me or my numbers... so just who are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimmy,

How many hands do you play a day? I play about 2K right now and some days 4BI is just so standard despite having done nothing wrong. You hit the old KK vs AA and then an hour later run set vs. set, then get it in with bullets and get cracked by the runner, runner straight only to have some donk call you down with an inside straight draw and hit you on the river. Boom, 4 BI.

Even with my measly 2K hands a day, I see this stuff all the time. It always ends up swinging back up the other way but the cards can kick you in the rear sometimes and you just have no choice.