Party Poker, 50NL, and the state of things

[kitchma]

Party is harder? I thought we (US players) were all missing out, because it was so easy.

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
Party is harder? I thought we (US players) were all missing out, because it was so easy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Opinions vary. But Party now <<< Party Poker a while back.
And trying to decide whether a single downswing example is variance or bad play is silly IMO. If you want to know the problems with trying to model such things, search out Pokey posts on the subject (he's posting in micro atm, but probably dumped this thread pretty quickly [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) (DISCLAIMER: He might not agree [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img])
It's not really like it matters to anyone but the person involved and he's got all the hands and stats and whatnot. And any micro forumer not at my tables gets downswing sympathy either way. Because they're here to improve and a lot of their fellow players aren't. (unless your loss would somehow end up as my gain. Maybe I should only root for people on other sites?) but idk

[Gigglegirl]

A good opening post IMO. Anything that promotes discussion and thought about your game has got to be good.
Here's another approach to viewing downswings.
Like most things in poker, downswings are situation/player dependent as to their importance.

Take 2 players with identical win rates, say 5 ptBB/100.
One player has stats of 35/30, embraces variance and pursues every small edge to the upmost.
The other has stats of 10/8, likes to steadily grind his win rate out and lets many marginal edges go for the sake of stability as high variance causes him to tilt.
Who has the bigger downswings?
Probably the 1st one will. He may have lots of 10BI+ downswing/upswings.
For the 10/8, large downswing/upswings may be much rarer.
Two approaches that lead to the same bottom line.

Another thing to consider is a players winrate to begin with.
Again take 2 players, this time with identical stats, say 21/17.
The 1st one has a win rate of 15ptBB/100.
The 2nd one has a win rate of 2ptBB/100.
Who is more worried by a 10BI downswing?
Well possibly the 1st one!
If he has such a high win rate, he should be possibly wondering why his massive winrate isn't more than compensating for his 'bad variance'. He is statistically far less likely to have a 10BI downswing than the 2ptBB/100 player so he should be more concerned that perhaps his losses are more bad play related.
The 2ptBB/100 winner probably expects +/-10BIs more often as variance is more likely to be a factor to a marginal winner.
Stats are only as important as the relevance you attach to them.

My 2 cents worth anyway.

[Triggerle]

The thing is I didn't even whine or anything about my downswing. I just casually mentioned it when I asked some people to review a session for me. Only in one post I went in to actual detail of what my downswing is comprised of because I was responding to someone who seemed genuinely interested in that.

What bothers me is when some half-a'ed opinion, grounded on an extremely small sample, is presented as a fact despite going against both the maths and the experience of people with bigger sample sizes.

It bothers me in the same way than when a fish brags about his win after he called pot sized bets on all streets with a gutshot and hit the river.

That said I get over such things pretty quickly because in the latter case I know I'm right and in the former because I know I have the stats and hand histories and the haters just have an opinion.

[sputum]

I actually forgot he singled you out in the OP (work -> home [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img])
Do you have your session review link handy?

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
What bothers me is when some half-a'ed opinion, grounded on an extremely small sample, is presented as a fact despite going against both the maths and the experience of people with bigger sample sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was exactly the same motivation for me.
I agreed completely with almost everything stated by ama, I only "dared" to disagree with an obviously incorrect blanket statement ("10+ bi downswings do not exist"). I didn't even think of it as a big deal since its so obviusly flawed. And after I got challenged on that, I was willing to elaborate and explain why I think so. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

It wasn't my intention to derail this thread, but amas insistence on repeating his false blanket statement kept the "discussion" going towards that (well, in fact, there was no discussion, because he wouldn't take any other arguments into account but only repeat his claim).

It's a pity he chose to leave the thread in that dramatic finale, since, as I said before, his original post is spot on in almost all points.

[Triggerle]

Link is here.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is I didn't even whine or anything about my downswing. I just casually mentioned it when I asked some people to review a session for me. Only in one post I went in to actual detail of what my downswing is comprised of because I was responding to someone who seemed genuinely interested in that.

What bothers me is when some half-a'ed opinion, grounded on an extremely small sample, is presented as a fact despite going against both the maths and the experience of people with bigger sample sizes.

It bothers me in the same way than when a fish brags about his win after he called pot sized bets on all streets with a gutshot and hit the river.

That said I get over such things pretty quickly because in the latter case I know I'm right and in the former because I know I have the stats and hand histories and the haters just have an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

you may be one of the few people who happened to get f'ed in the a by probability, but that doesn't change the fact that what happened was unlikely to occur in the first place.

[Triggerle]

You just have to understand that unlikely things are likely to happen if you have a big enough sample size. Winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, yet almost every week a sucker wins.

Given how many sessions are played by the hundreds of posters here it is not really that unlikely that a couple of those posters go through very rough stretches eventually.

And 17 buy-ins is not really that much different to 10 buy-ins depending on the games people play. I mentioned elsewhere that during that stretch I lost 7 buy-ins to 100/80/20 maniacs who went to the felt in every hand. In all 7 cases I had their range more than crushed and was in 3 of those cases in fact far ahead of their actual hand when the money went in. Maybe some people consider this bad play but it was definitely +EV.

I'll give you two examples. First example is to establish what kind of lunatic villian is. Second is one of the many times he stacked me. He lost most of the money to other players before quitting still up 4 buy-ins.

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.25/$0.50 Blinds - 5 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

SB: $51.55
<font color="black">Hero (BB): $50.00</font>
UTG: $95.65
<font color="black">CO: $105.05</font>
BTN: $47.00

<font color="black">Preflop:</font> Hero is dealt K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (5 Players)
UTG folds, CO calls $0.50, 2 folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $2.50</font>, CO calls $2.00

<font color="black">Flop:</font> ($5.25) Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $4.00</font>, <font color="red">CO raises to $8.00</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $12.00</font>, CO calls $4.00

<font color="black">Turn:</font> ($29.25) 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets all-in for $35.50</font>, CO calls $35.50

<font color="black">River:</font> ($100.25) Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Pot Size: $100.25 ($2 Rake)

CO had 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and LOST (-$50.00)
Hero had K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (two pair, Kings and Queens) and WON (+$48.25)

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.25/$0.50 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

SB: $48.75
<font color="black">Hero (BB): $88.40</font>
UTG: $79.40
<font color="black">MP: $55.85</font>
CO: $57.00
<font color="black">BTN: $62.40</font>

<font color="black">Preflop:</font> Hero is dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (6 Players)
UTG folds, MP calls $0.50, CO folds, <font color="red">BTN raises to $2.50</font>, SB folds, Hero calls $2.00, MP calls $2.00

<font color="black">Flop:</font> ($7.75) A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $5.00</font>, MP calls $5.00, BTN folds

<font color="black">Turn:</font> ($17.75) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $15.00</font>, <font color="red">MP raises all-in to $48.35</font>, Hero calls $33.35

<font color="black">River:</font> ($114.45) 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Pot Size: $114.45 ($3 Rake)

MP had 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (a straight, Seven to Jack) and WON (+$55.60)
Hero had A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (a pair of Aces) and LOST (-$55.85)

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
You just have to understand that unlikely things are likely to happen if you have a big enough sample size. Winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, yet almost every week a sucker wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

i do understand this. it was the entire point of my monkeys and typewriters post.


[ QUOTE ]
Given how many sessions are played by the hundreds of posters here it is not really that unlikely that a couple of those posters go through very rough stretches eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, this is trivially true. over hundreds of thousands of sessions, we are indeed likely to see some pretty crazy things. i thought i had made this clear but let me say it again: i'm not contesting the fact that someone could/people do endure large downswings, i'm contesting the claim that it is just due to running poorly. in some cases it very well may be due to numerous coolers and suck outs, but the vast majority of the time it won't be.

i'm sorry this clown sucked out on you, but this is just 1 hand. he will suck out at times b/c he's a maniac but you should be stacking him far more frequently. at any rate that's only 7/17 bi's (not that 7 isn't a lot). were the rest this gross? hands like this are obviously due to "variance" but were the other 10 this bad? if they were, sorry, better luck next time. this doesn't change the fact that if we were to look at all the hh's from big downswings, we are more likely to see bad play, than suck outs.