|
|
#11
05-08-2007, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
My SD is 44 PTBB/100 over 150K hands of 5/10 NL 6-max. I buy in full and top off after every hand. I play fairly tight but I'm not a total nutpeddler. I'm not invested in either side of this argument; I'm just giving an independent data point.
|
|
#12
05-08-2007, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
My SD is 44 PTBB/100 over 150K hands of 5/10 NL 6-max. I buy in full and top off after every hand. I play fairly tight but I'm not a total nutpeddler. I'm not invested in either side of this argument; I'm just giving an independent data point. [/ QUOTE ] After looking at the SD's for the 100+ players in my database with the most hands played, I do think that my 85 ptbb/100 is very (extremely?) high. The average seems to be around 60-65. I found one guy with ~10k hands and a SD of just 25 ptbb, but I can't accurately assess whether he's even a winning player. I still doubt that anyone maintains a CV of .25 in the long-run online at anything but the very lowest stakes.
|
|
#13
05-08-2007, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Here is a statistics thread with a wide range of figures, including 65 big blinds/100 and 145 big blinds/100. [/ QUOTE ] I find it hard to believe that anyone in the universe has an 8ptbb/100 winrate with a 32ptbb/100 SD. [/ QUOTE ] What's clear is that your perception of what is typical and what is amazing is unreliable. I will trust the consensus of the SSNL forum, and the posted statistics from PokerTracker, over your intuition. Neither my suggestion of an 8 PTBB/100 (16 big blinds/100) win rate nor my suggestion of a 40 PTBB/100 (80 big blinds/100) standard deviation are extreme or unusual. [/ QUOTE ] I also have an extensive PT database. The only people I can find in it with a SD of only 40ptbb/100 (and there are very few) are very tight short-stackers, [/ QUOTE ] Now, that is ridiculous. Do you think the SSNL forum is filled with very tight short-stackers? According to the statistics thread, many have SDs of about 40 PTBB/100. (When I buy in full, my SD is between 40 and 45 PTBB/100.) There were 3 players who posted in that statistics thread with a SD under 35 PTBB/100, all 3 with win rates over 8 PTBB/100, including a moderator and a pooh-bah who I know is an experienced live player. [ QUOTE ] I can't find a single person with a winrate/sd of .25, [/ QUOTE ] The statistics thread had many examples. Are you going to retract or apologize for saying that my figures were unrealistic? The only thing you have accomplished in this discussion is to object to something correct.
|
|
#14
05-08-2007, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to retract or apologize for saying that my figures were unrealistic? The only thing you have accomplished in this discussion is to object to something correct. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you are taking this so personally. I see no reason to apologize for saying something completely inoffensive, nor to retract a statement that I still believe is true. This is a pointless empirical argument anyway -- what matters for Kelly Criteria are your estimated winrates and standard deviations at various levels, not what some guy in some SSNL thread says his are.
|
|
#15
05-09-2007, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you going to retract or apologize for saying that my figures were unrealistic? The only thing you have accomplished in this discussion is to object to something correct. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you are taking this so personally. I see no reason to apologize for saying something completely inoffensive, nor to retract a statement that I still believe is true. [/ QUOTE ] You behavior exemplified a type of willful stupidity I find repulsive, which is common on these forums, but which can be rejected here more easily than elsewhere due to the low tolerance for nonsense. I posted that the common bankroll heuristics are inconsistent, and gave a simple mathematical tool for seeing this and assessing your own bankroll requirements. You found my message counterintuitive... which is part of why I knew it was worth saying. Fine. But instead of learning from it, you objected rudely and maintained your objection in the face of more and more empirical evidence that I am right. If you still insist I'm wrong, please be willing to wager a large amount of money on it.
|
|
#17
05-09-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you going to retract or apologize for saying that my figures were unrealistic? The only thing you have accomplished in this discussion is to object to something correct. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you are taking this so personally. I see no reason to apologize for saying something completely inoffensive, nor to retract a statement that I still believe is true. [/ QUOTE ] You behavior exemplified a type of willful stupidity I find repulsive, which is common on these forums, but which can be rejected here more easily than elsewhere due to the low tolerance for nonsense. I posted that the common bankroll heuristics are inconsistent, and gave a simple mathematical tool for seeing this and assessing your own bankroll requirements. You found my message counterintuitive... which is part of why I knew it was worth saying. Fine. But instead of learning from it, you objected rudely and maintained your objection in the face of more and more empirical evidence that I am right. If you still insist I'm wrong, please be willing to wager a large amount of money on it. [/ QUOTE ] Man, you are high strung. I understand the Kelly Criteria just fine, and I understand the "counterintuitive" result that if you have a CV of .25, optimal bankroll growth is best achieved by playing on a very short roll and moving up and down frequently. I have merely said that I think .25 is not sustainable in the long-run at anything but the very lowest stakes. I base this on my own research, but you are free to disagree. This is a pointless empirical argument. The one thing I did get wrong, admittedly, was thinking that your original estimate of 70 big blinds must have meant 70 big bets. If that offended you in some way, I'm sorry. I made that mistake because my personal standard deviation is 85 big bets, so I thought 70 sounded about average. After further research, I think 60 is about average for all players, and much lower is certainly possible for pretty tight players.
|
|
#18
05-10-2007, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
Quote:
All stats threads suffer from same biase : mainly winners post stats and they mainly post about their hot runs. We didnt see many 500K+ hands screenshosts but many many people on these forums played 500k+ hands. I think intuition/experience in the games is much better guidance here than some random stats people decided to post.
|
|
#19
05-10-2007, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
I made that mistake because my personal standard deviation is 85 big bets [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Wow.
|
|
#20
05-11-2007, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kelly criterion: from Phil Laak Q&A
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is strange. From what I know (from my db's and asking other msnl pros) standard std dev is between 40-55ptbb/100. ANything higher than 55 is rare. I played for almost half a year with std dev at 28-32 because of style I developed during that period. Its about 50 now , however.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
