Brian Townsend's Downswing (for all the Brian Townsend haters)

[dj_mercury]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Every time Townsend experiences a downswing of magnitude, he blames his play. He asks himself tough questions about his psychological/emotional state and his concentration. He looks on the problem in terms of opponents, to paraphrase "I should be able to crush these guys."

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it wiser to try and find faults with your game instead of just calling it a downswing or variance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Could well be, but he has also to ask himself if he has such an huge edge over his opponents to keep the results he has made recently. From the way it looks at the moment it seeems that he has runned too good in the recent time and doesn't recognize the fact that a bad run would have been almost inevitable, as poker like other gambling activities has to be evaluated from a long term perspective. Considering he is still playing in the same games(this is the impression) as before this huge downswing, his bankroll and risk management looks at least questionable.

[Steel_Pots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
busted,

There would be a chance that he goes broke except for the $400,000 a month he's pulling in from his 25% ownership share of CardRunners.

[/ QUOTE ]



if brian is making this much from CR then i must have more money than i thought.
tc

[/ QUOTE ]

From the founder of CR.

[corpseartist]

Brian will never play low limits again. Someone will always stake him for big games if he can't stake himself.

[El Diablo]

Steel Pots,

If Taylor Caby is so open about telling the truth, then why is he so secretive about details of the membership fair?

Maybe think about that for a while before believing everything he writes.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I LOL at calling anybody that young one of the best holdem players in the world. How can someone playing a short time 2 =3 years be considered one of the best.
He is having a bad run . I assume his first (getting life lessons are hard)and will not be this last. Part of growing up. I feel sorry for all the KIDS quiting their jobs to play poker. The test of time will tell you are the best.
I also am NOT impressed by very wealth people playing high stakes poker and being considered great,just because they play high stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's probably played more NLHE than any old-school live player

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? He states he never plays more than 4 tables.

[paulcouto]

[ QUOTE ]
Experiencing a massive downswing is nothing new to Brian. He has recouped before by remaining disciplined and re-evaluating his game,so he knows how to handle variance.

Also, people assume he was a loser this summer in the 1k/2k games they played in Bobbys room. Reality is, he actually left that game a winner even after bluffing Bobby Baldwin in that huge PLO hand.....

By exposing himself in his blog and his forum posts he leaves alot of room for speculation and criticisms. In my opinion, this just proves his confidence for his game and determination to remain the best the game has to offer.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that Brian invests more time into improving his game than any poker player in the world. He genuinely loves the game and strives to improve everyday and learn from his mistakes. He has surely proven himself to date and there isn't a doubt in my mind that he will come out back on top.

[/ QUOTE ]

these r all very good points and positive affirmations but i think bustedromo was refering to the problem of "extreme variance". variance in itself can be rode but not controlled. times of "extreme variance" can and probaly will lead to disaster.

i think el diablo said it perfectly:

f,

Just read Brian's latest blog post. I think that he continues to draw too strong a correlation between his play and his results and still does not acknowledge the impact that variance really plays in this game.

variance, if managed correctly, does not not overcome skill.

"extreme variance" even if managed correctly, can still be devastating. all the self pondering and time off and game analysis is not really going to change anything if the cards are destined to take a dump on you for unexplainably long lengths of time.

poker is the one and only freak sport that is almost encompassed by a force that is bigger than the players itself.

wether or not brian is experiencing extreme variance is yet to be seen.

if brian or anyone else wants to go through life or the poker world and not acknowledge the variance boogeyman, then more power to u. i totally understand the sugar coated concept of running bad versus running below expectation. but unfortunately, there is a mathematical reality called "the laws of probability". extreme variance is not a mathematical likelyhood but it does exist.

[paulcouto]

[ QUOTE ]
Steel Pots,

If Taylor Caby is so open about telling the truth, then why is he so secretive about details of the membership fair?

Maybe think about that for a while before believing everything he writes.

[/ QUOTE ]

so true and when i asked how u came up with that figure earlier, i was being sincere.

[Micturition Man]

bustedromo-

I have mixed feelings about your post. I agree that Brian has a clear and rather annoying tendency to underestimate the role of variance. But I don't agree that this flaw alone makes going bust inevitable, or even likely.

The thing is a poker player can believe whatever he wants about the role of variance in his results as long as he follows reasonable bankroll rules and always or almost always has an edge (which is probably not the case with Brian imo when it comes to PLO, but that is another matter).

For example you cite the fact that he hasn't stepped down yet as a dangerous sign. But you don't know what Brian's bankroll is. I don't either but I am pretty sure he is amply bankrolled for 300/600, so there is simply no logical reason he should be stepping down now. Don't get blinded by the raw numbers of his downswing.

In the trading world the risk-of-ruin is actually more poorly understood than in poker, since the trading game is constantly changing and traders tend to use statistical models that grossly oversimplify their risks. (I'm sort of winging it here but I got this from 'Fooled By Randomness', so you probably know what I'm talking about.)

Poker results however pretty closely follow a simple normal curve, and so poker players who care can learn all about bankroll requirements and risk of ruin and the like. If they follow reasonable bankroll rules, even while not really believing the premise behind those rules, they simply will not go bust.

If Brian were to go bust, it would be because he crosses the line to degeneracy and decides not to step down after failing at a shot-taking (or after very prolonged losses at his current limits.)

It could certainly happen but to my knowledge Brian's current history, reckless as it may seem to you, doesn't really suggest it.

[Micturition Man]

bustedromo-

After reading this second post I take back most of my comments about the first.

I thought you were assuming Brian would have a +EV most of the time but go bust simply due to money velocity factors. This argument seemed too simplistic to me.

But I see now you're making the more subtle argument that the tendency to downplay variance may seriously impact Brian's EV as game conditions or whatever change.

That seems very reasonable, though it's still pretty speculative. And the fact remains that the general variance properties of poker are far simpler than trading, so a moderate tendency to self-delusion is not as risky.

[kindergartencop]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Experiencing a massive downswing is nothing new to Brian.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY?

Last time I've checked, he's never had a "massive downswing".

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY?
"I am on the biggest downswing of my life that reached 1.2 million dollars today." What do YOU consider massive? Whens the last time you've checked up on Townsends swings?