Taking a break from Poker - LONG & Low Content

[JanelleBB7]

[ QUOTE ]
Janelle,

I really don´t know what you´re talking about re the FTOPS event. I mean, you busted out really early and never had a shot at winning this thing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL I wish I could have bubbled. I have a VERY different perspective then you. I am so disappointed because I went out really early. I would rather have played 4 hours and bubbled then go out early. It isn't about the money as much as it is about poor performance. Although I did play very well (I thought), I was disappointed in my results.

I have only played about 8 MTTS and I won 3 of them and cashed in 2... so this is where this mixed up perspective may have come from.

I don't mind you flaming me auto. I understand your perspective on my post.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janelle,

I really don´t know what you´re talking about re the FTOPS event. I mean, you busted out really early and never had a shot at winning this thing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL I wish I could have bubbled. I have a VERY different perspective then you. I am so disappointed because I went out really early. I would rather have played 4 hours and bubbled then go out early. It isn't about the money as much as it is about poor performance. Although I did play very well (I thought), I was disappointed in my results.

I have only played about 8 MTTS and I won 3 of them and cashed in 2... so this is where this mixed up perspective may have come from.

I don't mind you flaming me auto. I understand your perspective on my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

going out early in an MTT is like losing a single buy-in in a cash game. do you understand how preposterous it is to get upset about that? some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing. i know your perspective is "mixed up" because you won three $5 tournaments in a row, but get a hold of yourself. playing a series of 8 MTTs, even with a bunch of them to the end, is still only a couple of normal session's worth of action. you've posted a number of hands, and i think i can confidently tell you that you're not that good. you got lucky. accept it, move past it, get better, and for god sake learn some math about variance.

[Wires]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janelle,

I really don´t know what you´re talking about re the FTOPS event. I mean, you busted out really early and never had a shot at winning this thing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL I wish I could have bubbled. I have a VERY different perspective then you. I am so disappointed because I went out really early. I would rather have played 4 hours and bubbled then go out early. It isn't about the money as much as it is about poor performance. Although I did play very well (I thought), I was disappointed in my results.

I have only played about 8 MTTS and I won 3 of them and cashed in 2... so this is where this mixed up perspective may have come from.

I don't mind you flaming me auto. I understand your perspective on my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

going out early in an MTT is like losing a single buy-in in a cash game. do you understand how preposterous it is to get upset about that? some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing. i know your perspective is "mixed up" because you won three $5 tournaments in a row, but get a hold of yourself. playing a series of 8 MTTs, even with a bunch of them to the end, is still only a couple of normal session's worth of action. you've posted a number of hands, and i think i can confidently tell you that you're not that good. you got lucky. accept it, move past it, get better, and for god sake learn some math about variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally some sanity. Well stated, Pete. I was beginning to think I was in The Twilight Zone.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know 10 players that fit your criteria with an average ITM of 15% (good ones are higher), then I bet they would have to play more than 10,000 tournaments each for there to be a greater than 10% chance for this to occur.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know 10 players that fit your criteria with an average ITM of 15% (good ones are higher), then I bet they would have to play more than 10,000 tournaments each for there to be a greater than 10% chance for this to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math seems to be off here. The odds of a player with a 15% ITM going 0-50 on his next 50 tournaments is around .03%, or it should happen around once every 3000 or so tournaments. Or if you play 5 tournaments a day, it should happen about once every few years. I know at least 10 very successful professional online tournament players who play about that volume, so collectively, it should happen to a couple of them just about every year. Of course there are other factors, like playing worse after a long slide, getting frustrated, etc. Maybe those were present in some of the situations I have in mind, I don't know, but each of the players eventually recovered and continued to have great success afterwards.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know 10 players that fit your criteria with an average ITM of 15% (good ones are higher), then I bet they would have to play more than 10,000 tournaments each for there to be a greater than 10% chance for this to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math seems to be off here. The odds of a player with a 15% ITM going 0-50 on his next 50 tournaments is around .03%, or it should happen around once every 3000 or so tournaments. Or if you play 5 tournaments a day, it should happen about once every few years. I know at least 10 very successful professional online tournament players who play about that volume, so collectively, it should happen to a couple of them just about every year. Of course there are other factors, like playing worse after a long slide, getting frustrated, etc. Maybe those were present in some of the situations I have in mind, I don't know, but each of the players eventually recovered and continued to have great success afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually turns out to be a semi-interesting probability question.

After I posted that I then ran the numbers on the % chance of 50 loses in a row if you just play 50 tournaments like you did. For an itm of 15% that's obv just 0.85^50 like you said.

And I guess it isn't anymore complicated than that value multiplied by (3000-50) for the % chance of getting a run of 50 losses in a row? (It seems like it should be but I can't find it.)

What's also interesting is that an increase of a 1% point in itm% decreases this 50 loss run by a factor of two. I guess not suprising considering the exponent.

I would imagine most that call them professionals are better than 15%.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I would imagine most that call them professionals are better than 15%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is very dependent on style, and 15% is fairly conservative. Most very successful online tournament players have ITM between 11 to 17%. Try looking at Official Poker Rankings and just click on some of the highest rated players. Very few of them are at or above 15% -- and remember these are the guys that have been running very good!

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some of the best tournament players I know have gone strings of 50+ tournaments without cashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know 10 players that fit your criteria with an average ITM of 15% (good ones are higher), then I bet they would have to play more than 10,000 tournaments each for there to be a greater than 10% chance for this to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math seems to be off here. The odds of a player with a 15% ITM going 0-50 on his next 50 tournaments is around .03%, or it should happen around once every 3000 or so tournaments. Or if you play 5 tournaments a day, it should happen about once every few years. I know at least 10 very successful professional online tournament players who play about that volume, so collectively, it should happen to a couple of them just about every year. Of course there are other factors, like playing worse after a long slide, getting frustrated, etc. Maybe those were present in some of the situations I have in mind, I don't know, but each of the players eventually recovered and continued to have great success afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually turns out to be a semi-interesting probability question.

After I posted that I then ran the numbers on the % chance of 50 loses in a row if you just play 50 tournaments like you did. For an itm of 15% that's obv just 0.85^50 like you said.

And I guess it isn't anymore complicated than that value multiplied by (3000-50) for the % chance of getting a run of 50 losses in a row? (It seems like it should be but I can't find it.)

What's also interesting is that an increase of a 1% point in itm% decreases this 50 loss run by a factor of two. I guess not suprising considering the exponent.

I would imagine most that call them professionals are better than 15%.



[/ QUOTE ]
what is that second graph meant to mean, what is 10000% in this context?

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

what is that second graph meant to mean, what is 10000% in this context?

[/ QUOTE ]

The graph more highlights the cutoff (at 100%) what the ITM% where on average you can expect a run of 50 buyins.

I haven't thought it through, but if you have a number like 1000% that would mean (on average) at the ITM% you could expect 10 stretches of runs of 50 no cash tournies.

[roggles]

[ QUOTE ]

This actually turns out to be a semi-interesting probability question.

After I posted that I then ran the numbers on the % chance of 50 loses in a row if you just play 50 tournaments like you did. For an itm of 15% that's obv just 0.85^50 like you said.

And I guess it isn't anymore complicated than that value multiplied by (3000-50) for the % chance of getting a run of 50 losses in a row? (It seems like it should be but I can't find it.)

What's also interesting is that an increase of a 1% point in itm% decreases this 50 loss run by a factor of two. I guess not suprising considering the exponent.

I would imagine most that call them professionals are better than 15%.
]

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a question that has a lot of statistic signifance, and your proposed solution is completely off. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Run.html

There are statistical tests that give easy-to-calculate approximations but I need to go to sleep so I am not looking it up ina book.