MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Hock_]

Yes, this is a post about variance, but IMHO it's a subject that deserves more serious treatment than what's given in BBV, so I'm posting it here. Mods, if you think it should be moved then feel free.

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]

For pros and serious players this is a very important question; one that gets to the heart of bankroll management and other issues too -- including strategic issues if one starts adjusting based on short-term results.

bicyclekick provided one answer, but many dismissed it, explaining it away (a) as an anomaly; (b) by saying he lost his edge over his opponents; and/or (c) he was never any good to begin with.

I think that my experience over the last 2+ months should add something to the discussion. I think it's fair to say that I am a solid, winning player up to and including 200/400. I was near the top of the PStars win list compiled by baronzeus. For the first 3 months of the year I was running at 1.1BB /100 (163k hands); and since April 13 at 1.3BB/100 (46k hands).

It's the period from April 4-12 that this post is really about.

So here are a few graphs for the period from March 1 to May 7 that describe the situation better than any words could.

First, the entire period in BBs:

[image][/image]

Next, in dollars:

[image][/image]


Finally, here's just 100/200. My bread and butter game. That's right -- just shy of a <u>1000 BB</u> downswing:

[image][/image]

Ok, so a few observations and comments.

First, this insane downswing was not the result of tilt. I can't say I was 100% tilt-free, but I was actually pretty even-keeled throughout. To the extent I altered my game, it was to tighten-up just a little and play a little more passively (since it seemed that no matter what my hand was someone was going to suck out on me). No, I did not play my best throughout, but I think I actually saved myself a lot of bets by being more conservative than usual because, in fact, I just couldn't win a hand.

Just looking at parts of the graphs should show that the downswing wasn't the result of bad play. I mean there's one 400BB downswing where I basically didn't win a single hand. Nobody can play THAT badly.

Second, to the extent anyone needs convincing that this nearly 1000 BB downswing wasn't just because I suck, I think the graph immediately before and after the downswing goes a long way to refuting that. It's not like I was really good and then I sucked and then I was really good again. Not only that, but even during the downswing I was actually beating the 200/400 and 50/100 games. It was only the 100/200 game that I was losing in. People found lots of ways to dismiss bicyclekick's downswing as something other than variance, but I think it's a lot harder to dismiss this.

Third, was there anything I could have done differently? Sure, I can always improve my game. And I don't think I was necessarily playing my "A" game throughout. But I think I was playing pretty well. Whatever adjustments I could have made wouldn't have saved me more than 50-100BBs at most.

Finally, let me just say that although this is a little scary, it might also be reassuring to players who used to win but haven't lately. Bad runs can be much deeper and longer than many people think.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but I figured that given my situation (volume of hands, consistent success,etc.), this might be useful and interesting to some of you. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

[PartyGirlUK]

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

[Hock_]

[ 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 ]

I'm doughnutz. Many posters probably think I play [censored] even when I'm winning [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But given the nice winning streaks immediately before and after, it's highly unlikely that my play varied enough to account for even a fraction of the change. (And I don't think it changed much at all)

[Schneids]

There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

[AlexSem]

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_]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly appreciate the honesty, especially from a player whose game I respect as much as I do yours.

But a serious question: how do you know I'm playing tighter? I'm not saying I'm not, but how can you know? During this stretch my guess is that I was getting WAY fewer premium hands and I KNOW I was hitting no flops at all. So lots of folding preflop and on the flop without changing my game that much. So maybe I am still that idiot maniac (who by the way at least for the first several '000 hands was winning against you -- haven't checked recently).

Now, some players have adjusted to the way I play and I've adjusted back to take that into account. But I don't think my game is all that different from when I was (and am now again) winning 1+BB/100 at 100/200+.

[Victor]

[ 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.

[daryn]

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.

i had to edit this post because it sounds sarcastic (especially that last bit) but i'm serious.

[Hock_]

[ 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]

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