Question on Variance & judging your play

[1outer]

Have been running the worst i ever have in MTT's. Here's my question. I can deal with getting rivered over and over and over and losing flips over and over, that's variance. However, I was wondering, when reviewing HH's and how you played, if you look at your session and find you were playing tad nitty but getting it in good 80% of the time, worst case just barely behind with multilple draws and overcards. Just because you are "getting it in good a lot", does that mean you are actually playing well and variance is just sticking its ugly black head out? or is it possible I am getting it in good, just in the wrong spots? I feel like if I'm going to be rivered, it doesn't really matter where you get it in, unless you get all the money in on fifth street drawing completely dead. Would like to hear successful players who turn a profit in this game opinions. Thanks.

[Highn]

Does one play good if you allways fold and only play AA when blinded down to 1 big blind and you lose while getting it in good?

[mlagoo]

the best thing for you in this situation is peer review. the capacity to critically (and objectively) evaluate your own play is pretty rare, so you really need someone on the outside who can be like "i really think you missed a spot here" or "i think this is spew."

i had a two month stretch this past spring where i basically just lost money in MTTs, playing decent (but not deeb-like) volume. the best thing for me at that time was to constantly be talking to other people who i knew were very good at this game, and be like "what can i be doing differently? how can i get better?"

but yeah man, MTTs are a real mindfuck. the variance is insane, probably worse than any of us successful players can appreciate, because so many of us have been running near the top of the bell curve. so when you're playing a game where it's possible to run bad for so long, it's almost impossible to not stop during those bad stretches and be like "i don't even know if i'm a winning player." and of course the sort of "theoretical bounds" of MTT variance are such that you might never know. so, the best thing to do is just to try to surround yourself with other players who you consider to be intelligent, critical thinkers, who can help you not only improve but make sure you don't "fix" leaks that don't exist.

but you're definitely right in the basic notion that simply getting it in good a lot does not necessarily mean you're a winning player. it could definitely mean you're missing profitable, aggressive spots. but it's going to be really hard to judge that for yourself, as if you're continually missing those spots, it's probably because you don't recognize them in the first place.

i'm rambling. hope this was helpful. moral of the story: talk to other players you think are good/smart. don't get complacent. but don't overestimate your own self-evaluation skills. objective observers/critics with different experience/skillsets are invaluable.

[AcTiOnJaCsOn]

being a decent nit will make you a winner at at least mid stakes mtt's and some higher stakes buy ins (not like 100 rebuys). u have to be good though, being a nit doesnt mean you will be a winner if your not picking up chips in smaller pots as well. Just look @ fgators

[JP OSU]

[ QUOTE ]
the best thing for you in this situation is peer review. the capacity to critically (and objectively) evaluate your own play is pretty rare, so you really need someone on the outside who can be like "i really think you missed a spot here" or "i think this is spew."

i had a two month stretch this past spring where i basically just lost money in MTTs, playing decent (but not deeb-like) volume. the best thing for me at that time was to constantly be talking to other people who i knew were very good at this game, and be like "what can i be doing differently? how can i get better?"

but yeah man, MTTs are a real mindfuck. the variance is insane, probably worse than any of us successful players can appreciate, because so many of us have been running near the top of the bell curve. so when you're playing a game where it's possible to run bad for so long, it's almost impossible to not stop during those bad stretches and be like "i don't even know if i'm a winning player." and of course the sort of "theoretical bounds" of MTT variance are such that you might never know. so, the best thing to do is just to try to surround yourself with other players who you consider to be intelligent, critical thinkers, who can help you not only improve but make sure you don't "fix" leaks that don't exist.

but you're definitely right in the basic notion that simply getting it in good a lot does not necessarily mean you're a winning player. it could definitely mean you're missing profitable, aggressive spots. but it's going to be really hard to judge that for yourself, as if you're continually missing those spots, it's probably because you don't recognize them in the first place.

i'm rambling. hope this was helpful. moral of the story: talk to other players you think are good/smart. don't get complacent. but don't overestimate your own self-evaluation skills. objective observers/critics with different experience/skillsets are invaluable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mlagoo, thank you for this, seriously... Problem w/ the first part is it seems that all the truly accomplished people here seem to already know each other and it's kinda cliqueish...

[Vetgirig]

Even if you get it in as an 80% favorite every time - you will still get outdrawn 20% of the time. So if you are involved in 5 of these in a large turnament and all is for your life - you will statistical on average be out of the tournament.

Basically to reach the final table and to win a turnament you need to get some amount of luck. Just keep getting it in with the best hand and you will win the hand most times.

Remember even if you are twice as good as the players in the tournament you play and its 500 players in those turnemants you should only on average get to the final table once every 500 / 2 / 10 = 25th time you play the tournament.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you get it in as an 80% favorite every time - you will still get outdrawn 20% of the time. So if you are involved in 5 of these in a large turnament and all is for your life - you will statistical on average be out of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[october sky]

Yeah I don't agree with that logic at all. You cannot group all 5 of those all ins together as each is a seperate entity.

[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you get it in as an 80% favorite every time - you will still get outdrawn 20% of the time. So if you are involved in 5 of these in a large turnament and all is for your life - you will statistical on average be out of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this wrong? If in each of them you're all-in (like the post states), then the probability you will not win all of "n" such occurances is 1-(0.8)^n. You will win 3 such all-ins in a row only 51% of the time, four 41% of the time, and 5 only 33% of the time.

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you get it in as an 80% favorite every time - you will still get outdrawn 20% of the time. So if you are involved in 5 of these in a large turnament and all is for your life - you will statistical on average be out of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this wrong? If in each of them you're all-in (like the post states), then the probability you will not win all of "n" such occurances is 1-(0.8)^n. You will win 3 such all-ins in a row only 51% of the time, four 41% of the time, and 5 only 33% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, if you're involved in 5 all-ins for your tourney life, it means that you have already won the first 4.