MONSTER variance (w/ graphs) - Page 2

tmfs · #1 05-07-2007, 09:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What's your name on Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in this as well, it seems as every time a thread comes up about a high stakes limit player on stars, daryn comes out to say how bad they suck except for a few maybe.

Hock_ · #2 05-07-2007, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
in all honestly (seriously) i don't know how you win money. maybe it's because your game is much better than mine and i'm missing something crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that it's hard to be a big winner if you're playing conventional 2+2 poker. The trick is to deviate in just the right ways. Most players view some of my "deviation" as retarded. I believe that it's often the key to my success. So, yeah, I'd say you're probably just missing something.

PartyGirlUK · #3 05-08-2007, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fairly useless. if he has been losing a ton of course everyone is gonna say he sucks and has been playing bad. they dont know what hes had, how colddecked hes been and all the other stuff. ive seen ugly variance (from myslelf and roommate) and heard from others like joshw and bk. i believe it.

dean, you simply dont understand long term implications of lhe. you sit back, smug and superior, bc it hasnt happened to you. the reason is that you havent played nearly as many hands as the rest and have been far luckier. gawd i remember when u lost 250bb and felt the world was ending. gimme a fckn break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vic I asked a question, I'm genuinely curious - if a bunch of peopel come out and say they havent noticed any bad play over the past couple of months that makes the variance angle much more likely. Fwiw I dont everyone would think someone sucks just based on them losing, I base my impressions of a player on how they play their hands (may well be some link to how well you run tho, but it isnt the be all and end all)

D

Victor · #4 05-09-2007, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fairly useless. if he has been losing a ton of course everyone is gonna say he sucks and has been playing bad. they dont know what hes had, how colddecked hes been and all the other stuff. ive seen ugly variance (from myslelf and roommate) and heard from others like joshw and bk. i believe it.

dean, you simply dont understand long term implications of lhe. you sit back, smug and superior, bc it hasnt happened to you. the reason is that you havent played nearly as many hands as the rest and have been far luckier. gawd i remember when u lost 250bb and felt the world was ending. gimme a fckn break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vic I asked a question, I'm genuinely curious - if a bunch of peopel come out and say they havent noticed any bad play over the past couple of months that makes the variance angle much more likely. Fwiw I dont everyone would think someone sucks just based on them losing, I base my impressions of a player on how they play their hands (may well be some link to how well you run tho, but it isnt the be all and end all)

D

[/ QUOTE ]

considering daryn has always thought hock sucked its apparent opponents views of others is very very very skewed. thats all im getting at.

look at all the discussion in other threads wondering how alexsem, tiger76, pokkermon, hoss etc win. sometimes great players play far beyond others comprehension. when i say all high stakes players are lagmonkeys its a joke bc whatever they do its above me. to think that your opponents at that level can accurately assess how a great player is playing is asinine. if hock is truly great, then the grinding regulars are simply not gonna understand why.

also, dean, you are allegedly a winner and great player but you gave me some absolutely atrociously terrible advice in the past that cost me decent money. not on a single hand, but from an overall standpoint. i dont blame you in any way as i should have the confidence and talent to accurately assess my game.

kahntrutahn · #5 05-09-2007, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
also, dean, you are allegedly a winner and great player but you gave me some absolutely atrociously terrible advice in the past that cost me decent money

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this something you'd say publicly? If not, would you PM me said advice? I'm very curious now...

AlexSem · #6 05-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Sad truth of the matter is, nobody who got the answers is going to give them to you since that'll directly impact their hourly rate.

Is variance sick at 3-6 max tables 50/100 and above? Yes. Are you running bad only because of variance? No.

Funny thing is me and Hoss were talking how 2.5% of the people are going to run insanely hot, and 2.5% of the people are going to run insanely bad. Then there's the middle grounds and all.

I don't remember the exact figures but one can actually end up not winning a dime, being a 1BB/100 winner over a 100k hand stretch. I think it's safe to say very few people are actually squeezing out 1BB/100 to begin with, and so... If you're winning 0.5BB/100, then you can have a 200k hand break-even stretch...

Hock_ · #7 05-07-2007, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sad truth of the matter is, nobody who got the answers is going to give them to you since that'll directly impact their hourly rate.

Is variance sick at 3-6 max tables 50/100 and above? Yes. Are you running bad only because of variance? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, I know you think I'm a fish, Alex. Which is fine, I'm sure you're not alone.

But I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not looking for answers. I've managed to win 1+BB/100 over '00,000s of hands and I'm pretty sure that I'm a winning player in the games I play in. [Am I the best? Far from it. Do I have lots of room to improve? Absolutely. But based on observation and my results I believe that I'm among the best players, at least at 100/200]. I had NEVER had a losing month and never a dowswing more than 350BBs. But then, all of a sudden, without my game changing, I got destroyed over a relatively small # of hands. And then just as suddenly, starting winning boatloads again.

So, my conclusion: wicked variance. Variance of the degree that only a few posters have ever admitted to having. Is variance necessarily the cause? No, not necessarily. But all things considered it sure seems like it's by FAR the most likely.

That's all I was trying to share. And the reason I wanted to share it is that it may cause some people to think just a little differently about their game and about the game in general.

Victor · #8 05-07-2007, 07:40 PM

hock, i appreciate you posting. variance is like drunk driving or aids. no one thinks it will happen to them.

AlexSem · #9 05-07-2007, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, yeah, I know you think I'm a fish, Alex. Which is fine, I'm sure you're not alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're definitely a winner. Calling you a fish is just something I do out of frustration at the tables [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Don't be fooled.

[ QUOTE ]

But I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not looking for answers. I've managed to win 1+BB/100 over '00,000s of hands and I'm pretty sure that I'm a winning player in the games I play in. [Am I the best? Far from it. Do I have lots of room to improve? Absolutely. But based on observation and my results I believe that I'm among the best players, at least at 100/200]. I had NEVER had a losing month and never a dowswing more than 350BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is key. Never a losing month? You got to be kidding. This is variance in YOUR favor bigtime. Now you just got a taste of what most others suffer through - months of break-even poker.

[ QUOTE ]

But then, all of a sudden, without my game changing, I got destroyed over a relatively small # of hands. And then just as suddenly, starting winning boatloads again.

So, my conclusion: wicked variance. Variance of the degree that only a few posters have ever admitted to having. Is variance necessarily the cause? No, not necessarily. But all things considered it sure seems like it's by FAR the most likely.

That's all I was trying to share. And the reason I wanted to share it is that it may cause some people to think just a little differently about their game and about the game in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post meant as an encouragement to those who think they suck, telling them to hang on, gotcha.

emerson · #10 05-07-2007, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the question has often been asked: How big a downswing can a solid, winning player expect to experience playing high stakes LHE? [500BBs? hahahaha]

[/ QUOTE ]

You should experience downswings of every size, 500BB, 1000BB, etc. If you have an edge, the bigger they are the less frequently they should occur. You just need to know if this is a once in a lifetime thing, a once in a year thing, once every ten year thing, etc.

If it is online play then the best explanation is that it is probably not bad luck or poor play, but cheating. Too many colluders, not enough fish. Player after player who was a long term winner is suddenly complaining that they don't win any more.