$3 Million Downsizing.............

[NickyC]

Maybe Brian and Prahlad can get together and sing a duet about bad bankroll management avoidance.

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should be very clear to anyone who has studied the math of bankroll management, risk-of-ruin, and variance that Townsend is well on his way to being effectively busto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just string together these buzzwords randomly or do you have any idea what they actually mean? Your whole post makes no sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Variance is a measure of fluctuation from the mean in a stochastic process. If a player, even a winning player, does not well-manage his variance as he increases his $ velocity (the amount of money wagered per unit of time), the normal expectation is that he will at some point lose his entire roll.

Brian's escalation of $ velocity and variance this year strike me as a pattern of ruin I've seen many times before in financial trading. If he continues like this, my guesstimate is that he will be bust by the end of the year.

Unfortunately, the poker boom has created a lot of hero worship. People want people to win because they like them, or want to live vicariously through them, not because they are making sound risk decisions.

Similarly, Brad Booth may or may not be busto, I don't know, but Sklansky's analysis was spot on. Extreme variance play at the table works for those whose bankrolls far exceed their opponents. So, long term, such play works for a Sammy Farha, who is worth perhaps $50M. But it doesn't work for a Brad Booth, who had at most $10M before he went into his horrible downswing earlier this year.

Sorry you don't like math. But ultimately, the laws of mathematics rule the gambling world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one on here wants to hear that! If even the great Brian goes busto (or close), many feel they have no hope of ever being big winners.

FWIW, this is the same Brian said "there's no such thing as running bad, just below expectation", "I had no idea a wrap had so much equity on the turn", "I have an edge on phil ivey", "weighted on hand an foot"

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should be very clear to anyone who has studied the math of bankroll management, risk-of-ruin, and variance that Townsend is well on his way to being effectively busto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just string together these buzzwords randomly or do you have any idea what they actually mean? Your whole post makes no sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Variance is a measure of fluctuation from the mean in a stochastic process. If a player, even a winning player, does not well-manage his variance as he increases his $ velocity (the amount of money wagered per unit of time), the normal expectation is that he will at some point lose his entire roll.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but it requires you to know a bunch of stuff about BT, about his roll, about his edge in the games that you really don't. This thread exists under the assumption that he dosn't manage his variance well, but beyond OMG 3 MILLION IS A BIG NUMBER we don't really have any evidence of that.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]

No one on here wants to hear that! If even the great Brian goes busto (or close), many feel they have no hope of ever being big winners.

FWIW, this is the same Brian said "there's no such thing as running bad, just below expectation", "I had no idea a wrap had so much equity on the turn", "I have an edge on phil ivey", "weighted on hand an foot"

[/ QUOTE ]

There's lots of telltale signs in Brian's blog that he's entered a realm of risk he's not well-understanding and is not in control of. His emphasis on working on his game, keeping up with his rivals improvement, diet, exercise, etc. These are all well and good goals, but improving one's game can only be a long term solution. If he's playing in a realm of variance inappropriate to his bankroll, he will go broke before he figures out how to tune his game.

Also, his emphasis on how live play is so much easier than online because live there are billionaires who are playing for fun, who don't care if they drop a million or two. This is a double edged sword: yes, Brian is probably a better poker player than most of these billionaires, but the billionaires can withstand bankroll variance much better than Brian, and so being a better poker player might not matter. If you go broke before your edge generates the expected profits, it doesn't matter how good you are.

Brian is typical of a lot of the young online players who got really good at cards without getting really good at the math of gambling. In a well-managed professional financial trading environments, young traders ability to expose the firm to risk is carefully bounded. The traders are not protected from risk of ruin while they learn their craft, carefully monitored. In poker, none of these control mechanisms exist. Some players figure out risk control on their own, others think it's all down to how well they play cards.

[jsnipes28]

bustedromo-

[ QUOTE ]
There's lots of telltale signs in Brian's blog that he's entered a realm of risk he's not well-understanding and is not in control of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you also have degrees in psychology?

[ QUOTE ]
If you go broke before your edge generates the expected profits, it doesn't matter how good you are.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have missed the part where his edge generated around 300k in profit during those live games.

[ QUOTE ]
Brian is typical of a lot of the young online players who got really good at cards without getting really good at the math of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whereas most older players have not gotten good at cards and think they understand the math of gambling and try and use it to sound smart (when in reality they look like fking morons) and bash "young internet pros."

[HensonLosesLots]

I vote for Bustedromo as King Know-It-All. Apparently he has life figured out with his:

"I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about."

You sir, are just too smart for life yo

[NickyC]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for Bustedromo as King Know-It-All. Apparently he has life figured out with his:

"I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about."

You sir, are just too smart for life yo

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless he came up with the DOH LOL picture, he has failed at life imho.

[VanVeen]

i love how people affect an inane meaningfulness when discussing the putative edge their "favorite" player may or may not have at a largely misunderstood game (most of you are retards, mmkay?). his edge is indeterminable and his variance is (almost certainly) huge. romo's comments are apposite given any reasonable set of assumptions regarding rugby's edge, variance, and bankroll.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No one on here wants to hear that! If even the great Brian goes busto (or close), many feel they have no hope of ever being big winners.

FWIW, this is the same Brian said "there's no such thing as running bad, just below expectation", "I had no idea a wrap had so much equity on the turn", "I have an edge on phil ivey", "weighted on hand an foot"

[/ QUOTE ]

There's lots of telltale signs in Brian's blog that he's entered a realm of risk he's not well-understanding and is not in control of. His emphasis on working on his game, keeping up with his rivals improvement, diet, exercise, etc. These are all well and good goals, but improving one's game can only be a long term solution. If he's playing in a realm of variance inappropriate to his bankroll, he will go broke before he figures out how to tune his game.

Also, his emphasis on how live play is so much easier than online because live there are billionaires who are playing for fun, who don't care if they drop a million or two. This is a double edged sword: yes, Brian is probably a better poker player than most of these billionaires, but the billionaires can withstand bankroll variance much better than Brian, and so being a better poker player might not matter. If you go broke before your edge generates the expected profits, it doesn't matter how good you are.

Brian is typical of a lot of the young online players who got really good at cards without getting really good at the math of gambling. In a well-managed professional financial trading environments, young traders ability to expose the firm to risk is carefully bounded. The traders are not protected from risk of ruin while they learn their craft, carefully monitored. In poker, none of these control mechanisms exist. Some players figure out risk control on their own, others think it's all down to how well they play cards.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you're wrong. Brian may not be a math whiz but he knows useful rules of thumb for bankroll requirements in NL/PL games.

More importantly he has given every indication that he is willing to step down when his bankroll gets hit too big. He is aware that in bankroll terms he was taking a shot at 1k/2k.

Finally, there is a flaw in your model which is that even if Brian were willing to play to the point of busto rather than step down, he can not endlessly increase his stakes until probability catches up with him.

1k/2k is the end of the road... it has never gotten any higher. Even under your unfavorable assumptions about his risk taking, if he can get safely bankrolled for 1k/2k he will be home free.

[VanVeen]

i think romo is using a different definition of "busto" or "broke" than you are, mict. i think he simply means "not bankrolled to play stakes above x". (whatever that x may be) no reasonable person can think rugby could ever go "broke" but he may find himself demoted. so could lots of people.