OT: Analysis of my recent results (long)

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The first interesting feature of this graph is that, until we get ITM, it is not very far out of line from what we've come to expect from a winning player. The bubble percentage/ITM is a little low, but nothing too horrible.

Then, once you look at ITM, it's clear that the 3rd vs. 1st is out of whack. Typically, the two percentages would be close to reversed. So, if a player I respected showed me this graph, I would say "Dude, you're doing fine, just having some bad luck once you are ITM, stay the course."

It's interesting to look at what the results would be if we swapped the percentages for 1st and 3rd. In that case, I would have a profit of $5175, for an ROI of 7%. Not outstanding, but solid, given that I was running a little cold on the bubble.

Now, what would have had to happen for this swapping of percentages to occur? As an approximation, let's say that there were some key showdowns that led to me getting 3rd instead of 1st. This is not really accurate, of course, but it is a reasonably proxy I think, given that the actual key showdowns may have given me 4th or 5th instead of 1st, i.e., no money at all.

It turns out that if 34 of these key showdowns had gone my way instead of Villain's way, the percentages would be swapped. I was ITM 472 times. So, if I could have reached in and changed just 7% of these key showdowns, I would be running just fine and dandy.
In other words, it doesn't take much to turn a crappy run into a decent one, and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pineapple this is the major flaw I have seen during this downswing of yours. Based on the information here you can conclude two of the following things.
1. You are running really bad.
2. You are making mistakes ITM that cost you money or you are making mistakes before getting ITM that give you short stacks in the money.

You assume it is 1. When in reality it is most likely a combination of 1 and 2.


[ QUOTE ]

The overwhelming question that this graph should raise in your mind is: WTF IS WITH THE VOLATILITY?!?!?!?

I mean, I've seen some volatile results graphs, but this one is just ridiculous.

A key concept to realize here is the following: assuming independence of tournaments, Finish Distribution Encapsulates Results.

What I mean by this is that the details of my actual playing style are completely irrelevant to the volatility of this graph, which is solely determined by the Finish Distribution above, plus random variance.

I'm not interested in proving this result again, there was a huge thread where it took me a week to convince Slim (a Ph. D. candidate in Nuclear Physics) of the truth of this concept, somebody can dig it up again if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think playing style has some effect on variance, but I don't want to get into this.

[ QUOTE ]

But wait a minute, you might say, what about the assumption above about independence of tournaments? Surely I must have been on Monkey Tilt during my downswings, right?

No. There are several pieces of evidence I can cite here:
1.) I wasn't. You simply have to believe me on this one.
2.) If I was on Monkey Tilt during my downswings, that means that outside of my downswings, I pretty much must be the best poker player in the history of the universe, by a very large margin, if I am going to manage to break even, and this is just absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tilt isn't some all encompassing thing. It's not like your downswings are purely tilt oriented, but it is possible to tilt and have if slighlty effect your ROI because you are making too few calls, or too few pushes, or too many pushes or whatever. Tilt isn't some switch were untilted= A game tilted= F game.
As well if you are going to argue you were just running really bad isn't it possible your downswings were tilt induced and your upswings were a byproduct of you running super well.

[ QUOTE ]

3.) JacKnight21 has sweated some of my sets over the past couple of weeks, and he sees the unbelievably horrible runs I get on, where I get rivered 7 or 8 times a set by 2- or 3- outers, and sure this happens to everyone 1 or 2 times a set, but not 7 or 8 times, and not 5 or 6 or 20 sets in a row.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about JacKnight but he isn't some ultimate SNG authority believe it or not, but it is possible both of you are wrong about certain hands.

[ QUOTE ]

4.) This crap happens to me so often that if I had been tempted to go on Monkey Tilt during a downswing, I would have long ago learned how to deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that you have this attitude makes me believe you are on tilt. Based on this post you seem to think that you run worse than anyone. Anyone who has any basic understanding of statistics would realize that people don't run worse than everyone especially over a fairly significant sample.


[ QUOTE ]
So, WTF?!?!? Really, I have no idea. Extreme volatility just seems to be my own personal curse, and IMHO, there is no reason for it, and it should end Real Soon Now. But when you are in the middle of it, and it lasts for months, well, it sure does suck balls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same as above. You either have a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, you are in a denial, or you do run worse than everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, on to some other issues that I have seen raised at various times, or that JacKnight21 raised today:

1.) My play is too aggressive.
First, as I noted above, my playing style should have no effect on my volatility.

Second, the regulars here should realize that I play very, very close attention during my tournaments and take detailed notes on every player, which means I know how good you are, and I know what your leaks are if any. If you are good, you are going to be calling tight in many situations, so I am going to push on you, and you are going to be pushing wide in many situations, so I am going to look you up frequently, and if I see a spot where I can exploit one of your leaks, you can be damn sure I'm going to put pressure on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have complained about getting spite called.
This is what you just outlined.
1. You push a lot because regulars call tight
2. You call wide against regulars because they push loose
You aren't the only person who has come to this conclusion it is possible that these "spite calls" are in reality good calls against your pushing range.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, if any of you were sweating me over the last few months as I played, you would have seen the huge number of absoultely stupid, horrendous beats I take, and all this talk of analyzing my play for leaks would become laughable. I get my money in as a clear favorite nearly all of the time, and I lose more showdowns than I should. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again you don't run worse than everyone else. It is possible that you do have serious leaks.

[ QUOTE ]

4.) Are the 60s beatable currently?
IMHO, the 60s are currently beatable for approximately 10% ROI by a top-notch player. I have stated this before in other posts. But there are not very many top-notch players at the 60s from what I have seen. AtlBrvs4Life (who isn't around much) and maybe a few others. Most of the regulars have quite significant gaps in their game IMHO that will prevent them from making any kind of decent money at the 60s long-term. You might think it is unspeakably arrogant of me to make this judgement, and you are right, but I'm making it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this and I have some okay empirical evidence which would suggest otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

5.) Will the 60s be beatable by a less than top-notch player in the future?
Who knows? I'm waiting until after Jan. 1 personally, to see what develops.

[/ QUOTE ]
They will

[ QUOTE ]

7.) It's stupid to play STTs.
Agreed. Cash ring games are the place to be. I'll get there eventually. I have my reasons for playing STTs at the moment. Mostly bankroll-related. But unless you are one of the few top-notch STTFers AND are having bankroll troubles, really I see no reason to continue to play STTs. You might think this statement is self-serving, but it is my honest opinion. Really, I can't wait until I leave these damn things behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck with ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I cheated. I had one too many glasses of wine and came back to this thread.

The only possible conclusion I can draw from your nonsenical replies are that you, sir, are an idiot.

As just one example, a "spite call" is one which hurts the caller vs. any remotely reasonable range for the pusher. This is different from a "tough call" which is one that is correct vs. a wide range, which a good player should have in certain spots.

Plonk. And good riddance, d!ckface.

[TheNoodleMan]

Pineapple,
I'm pretty much at even for my last 1000 tourneys too. [censored] happens. Lets pwn the next 1000 and throw rocks at the moon.

[ManChild]

[ QUOTE ]
Pineapple,
I'm pretty much at even for my last 1000 tourneys too. [censored] happens. Lets pwn the next 1000 and throw rocks at the moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, 1000 breakeven isnt such a big deal

[durron597]

everybody in this thread please chill

you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming

[The Yugoslavian]

But I think Pineapple has broken even over like 1k 1124124 times...or not...who knows. If I could only read the tone of his posts I would think he was a 100k LOSER the last 6 months.

Yugoslav

[billxo1b]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think Pineapple has broken even over like 1k 1124124 times...or not...who knows. If I could only read the tone of his posts I would think he was a 100k LOSER the last 6 months.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

from his sharkscope chart, he won $3k over the first 1000 sngs ($27 and $60, guess mostly $27s), and broke even in the last 1400 sngs , mostly $60s.

[Inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The first interesting feature of this graph is that, until we get ITM, it is not very far out of line from what we've come to expect from a winning player. The bubble percentage/ITM is a little low, but nothing too horrible.

Then, once you look at ITM, it's clear that the 3rd vs. 1st is out of whack. Typically, the two percentages would be close to reversed. So, if a player I respected showed me this graph, I would say "Dude, you're doing fine, just having some bad luck once you are ITM, stay the course."

It's interesting to look at what the results would be if we swapped the percentages for 1st and 3rd. In that case, I would have a profit of $5175, for an ROI of 7%. Not outstanding, but solid, given that I was running a little cold on the bubble.

Now, what would have had to happen for this swapping of percentages to occur? As an approximation, let's say that there were some key showdowns that led to me getting 3rd instead of 1st. This is not really accurate, of course, but it is a reasonably proxy I think, given that the actual key showdowns may have given me 4th or 5th instead of 1st, i.e., no money at all.

It turns out that if 34 of these key showdowns had gone my way instead of Villain's way, the percentages would be swapped. I was ITM 472 times. So, if I could have reached in and changed just 7% of these key showdowns, I would be running just fine and dandy.
In other words, it doesn't take much to turn a crappy run into a decent one, and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pineapple this is the major flaw I have seen during this downswing of yours. Based on the information here you can conclude two of the following things.
1. You are running really bad.
2. You are making mistakes ITM that cost you money or you are making mistakes before getting ITM that give you short stacks in the money.

You assume it is 1. When in reality it is most likely a combination of 1 and 2.


[ QUOTE ]

The overwhelming question that this graph should raise in your mind is: WTF IS WITH THE VOLATILITY?!?!?!?

I mean, I've seen some volatile results graphs, but this one is just ridiculous.

A key concept to realize here is the following: assuming independence of tournaments, Finish Distribution Encapsulates Results.

What I mean by this is that the details of my actual playing style are completely irrelevant to the volatility of this graph, which is solely determined by the Finish Distribution above, plus random variance.

I'm not interested in proving this result again, there was a huge thread where it took me a week to convince Slim (a Ph. D. candidate in Nuclear Physics) of the truth of this concept, somebody can dig it up again if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think playing style has some effect on variance, but I don't want to get into this.

[ QUOTE ]

But wait a minute, you might say, what about the assumption above about independence of tournaments? Surely I must have been on Monkey Tilt during my downswings, right?

No. There are several pieces of evidence I can cite here:
1.) I wasn't. You simply have to believe me on this one.
2.) If I was on Monkey Tilt during my downswings, that means that outside of my downswings, I pretty much must be the best poker player in the history of the universe, by a very large margin, if I am going to manage to break even, and this is just absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tilt isn't some all encompassing thing. It's not like your downswings are purely tilt oriented, but it is possible to tilt and have if slighlty effect your ROI because you are making too few calls, or too few pushes, or too many pushes or whatever. Tilt isn't some switch were untilted= A game tilted= F game.
As well if you are going to argue you were just running really bad isn't it possible your downswings were tilt induced and your upswings were a byproduct of you running super well.

[ QUOTE ]

3.) JacKnight21 has sweated some of my sets over the past couple of weeks, and he sees the unbelievably horrible runs I get on, where I get rivered 7 or 8 times a set by 2- or 3- outers, and sure this happens to everyone 1 or 2 times a set, but not 7 or 8 times, and not 5 or 6 or 20 sets in a row.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about JacKnight but he isn't some ultimate SNG authority believe it or not, but it is possible both of you are wrong about certain hands.

[ QUOTE ]

4.) This crap happens to me so often that if I had been tempted to go on Monkey Tilt during a downswing, I would have long ago learned how to deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that you have this attitude makes me believe you are on tilt. Based on this post you seem to think that you run worse than anyone. Anyone who has any basic understanding of statistics would realize that people don't run worse than everyone especially over a fairly significant sample.


[ QUOTE ]
So, WTF?!?!? Really, I have no idea. Extreme volatility just seems to be my own personal curse, and IMHO, there is no reason for it, and it should end Real Soon Now. But when you are in the middle of it, and it lasts for months, well, it sure does suck balls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same as above. You either have a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, you are in a denial, or you do run worse than everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, on to some other issues that I have seen raised at various times, or that JacKnight21 raised today:

1.) My play is too aggressive.
First, as I noted above, my playing style should have no effect on my volatility.

Second, the regulars here should realize that I play very, very close attention during my tournaments and take detailed notes on every player, which means I know how good you are, and I know what your leaks are if any. If you are good, you are going to be calling tight in many situations, so I am going to push on you, and you are going to be pushing wide in many situations, so I am going to look you up frequently, and if I see a spot where I can exploit one of your leaks, you can be damn sure I'm going to put pressure on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have complained about getting spite called.
This is what you just outlined.
1. You push a lot because regulars call tight
2. You call wide against regulars because they push loose
You aren't the only person who has come to this conclusion it is possible that these "spite calls" are in reality good calls against your pushing range.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, if any of you were sweating me over the last few months as I played, you would have seen the huge number of absoultely stupid, horrendous beats I take, and all this talk of analyzing my play for leaks would become laughable. I get my money in as a clear favorite nearly all of the time, and I lose more showdowns than I should. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again you don't run worse than everyone else. It is possible that you do have serious leaks.

[ QUOTE ]

4.) Are the 60s beatable currently?
IMHO, the 60s are currently beatable for approximately 10% ROI by a top-notch player. I have stated this before in other posts. But there are not very many top-notch players at the 60s from what I have seen. AtlBrvs4Life (who isn't around much) and maybe a few others. Most of the regulars have quite significant gaps in their game IMHO that will prevent them from making any kind of decent money at the 60s long-term. You might think it is unspeakably arrogant of me to make this judgement, and you are right, but I'm making it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this and I have some okay empirical evidence which would suggest otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

5.) Will the 60s be beatable by a less than top-notch player in the future?
Who knows? I'm waiting until after Jan. 1 personally, to see what develops.

[/ QUOTE ]
They will

[ QUOTE ]

7.) It's stupid to play STTs.
Agreed. Cash ring games are the place to be. I'll get there eventually. I have my reasons for playing STTs at the moment. Mostly bankroll-related. But unless you are one of the few top-notch STTFers AND are having bankroll troubles, really I see no reason to continue to play STTs. You might think this statement is self-serving, but it is my honest opinion. Really, I can't wait until I leave these damn things behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck with ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I cheated. I had one too many glasses of wine and came back to this thread.

The only possible conclusion I can draw from your nonsenical replies are that you, sir, are an idiot.

Plonk.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Dude listen,
A. You really are running that bad in which case it's ok because you expected winrate is much higher then has been over your last 1000 sngs. Just keep sticking it out and your going to get rich.
B. Your playing less than perfectly and possibly badly.
C. You just not a winning player

Now I'm not sure about A but I know B is true since nobody plays 100% all the time at any level of poker. As for C past history would dictate your a winning player so this isn't true. Your not winning at the 66's over 1k sng's. This doesn't at all mean you are a losing player but there is no way you played every hand over those 1k sng's optimally. You biggest mistake seems to be your ego here and while other posters on the fourm might not be right about certain situations you need to expand your mind a bit and try to play every spot as good as possible.

You will almost never see any high stakes players refuse to take into account another point of view from people at the similar, higher or even lower level of thinking. You really need to let the avaliability of information help you out.

If nothing else get really drunk this weekend and fall in love with a scrippa...again [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

bill,

Yeah but his whining goes way back to the prehistoric party days, [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img], where he lost 103k obv.

Yugoslav

[Pudge714]

Beat: I'm getting in a dickwaving contest over the internet with somebody I have met for like five minutes in real life. When I have 4 exams in the next weak.

Brag or perhaps variance: I think I'm winning the dickwaving contest.

[Melchiades]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the regulars here should realize that I play very, very close attention during my tournaments and take detailed notes on every player, which means I know how good you are, and I know what your leaks are if any. If you are good, you are going to be calling tight in many situations, so I am going to push on you, and you are going to be pushing wide in many situations, so I am going to look you up frequently, and if I see a spot where I can exploit one of your leaks, you can be damn sure I'm going to put pressure on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
So basicly you are an awesome good SNG player that knows all the regulars leaks and exploit them, but you still aren't able to beat the 60's. Uh......rofl. You must be the most arrogant douche on 2+2 (and thats saying quite a lot), and you really are not close to having the game to back you up. Quite sad actually. Too bad you wont read and reply to my insult though, feels a bit like wasted effort on my behalf.

You kind of remind me of Flight_Risk.