Variance

[DeathDonkey]

aba,

I'm a big fanboy of yours but I think you are just plain wrong about how high stakes limit posters use variance to rationalize anything. Everyone in this thread is being overly concerned that a big downswing is NOT due to variance. You don't (to my knowledge) have the experience of playing shorthanded limit holdem games with only a small edge and seeing the significance of short term luck in that game.

Also, you use the word "variance" to describe how a small winner rationalizes why he isn't a big winner but I think more frequently variance causes a small winner or a slight loser to BE a big winner over some amount of hands.

I am a big believer that we can always get better and taking time to focus on playing your best when losing is extremely important. That said, there are plenty of times when your results are not a direct cause of your actions and I think none of us are lazy enough to use this as a crutch, it simply happens and we wish it didn't. I feel like I'm defending limit players from you but I've seen plenty of NL players report major downswings on the high limit NL forums and BBV and a lot of those guys were big winners for a long time. I'd hate to see a guy go through a downswing and then say "well I'm done with this game/limit because this can't be bad luck" when it often can.

-DeathDonkey

[Glenn]

aba20, I'm pretty sure you play a lot better than I, but this is just completely wrong. Assuming you have complete control over your results in poker is a good way to go insane and susequently broke.

"People act like there is some outside force beyond their control."

There is, the randomness of the deal. This is really obvious.

"Well there isn't your results are based off of your actions and nothing else."

Ok, I'm all in on the turn with Jd Td, and my opponent has Ad Kh. The board is Ah 7d 4d Kd. I will leave this hand up $5000 or down $5000. This result is not under my control.

"People need to take responsibility for there losses and realize they are to blame for losing and not some statistical anomaly."

The funny thing is that among players in the high stakes forum, the statistical anomoly is how much they win. Overestimating your edge can be just as dangerous. Sometimes you lose because you're unlucky, and sometimes you win because you are lucky.

"When I am losing or on a downswing I don't blame variance or bad luck I look to myself, because I know that I am probably off my game."

While I agree that a player who is losing should check their game, players sometimes try to fix problems that aren't there, and actually move toward less optimal play, making their downswing worse.

"Take responsibility for your play and results. Both are a direct cause from your actions. "

I strongly belive you control your play, but cannot control your results. Lots of new players who run well initially think they have found a way to take the luck out of poker. "If someone is losing, he's not playing well". This would, of course, be preferable, but it's not the case. There is a ton of luck in poker, and all you can do is try and play your best. Thinking you have control over your results over nonhuge samples is at best naive, and at worst dangerous. If 10 identical players play 100,000 hands of 300/600 shorthanded limit holdem, the average difference between the results of the biggest winner and the biggest loser is right around one million dollars. Going into high stakes poker and not being prepared for luck having that much control over your results sends a lot of players will decent skills to the poorhouse.

[aba20]

[ QUOTE ]
aba,

I'm a big fanboy of yours but I think you are just plain wrong about how high stakes limit posters use variance to rationalize anything. Everyone in this thread is being overly concerned that a big downswing is NOT due to variance. You don't (to my knowledge) have the experience of playing shorthanded limit holdem games with only a small edge and seeing the significance of short term luck in that game.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, I didn't word what I was trying to say well at all. After rereading it didn't come across as I meant to. And I was speaking about my NL experience as I only have 30-40K hands of limit experience. I realize this is the limit forum (And I admit I am inexperienced in limit) but I think the message I am trying to help people learn is still there.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm defending limit players from you but I've seen plenty of NL players report major downswings on the high limit NL forums and BBV and a lot of those guys were big winners for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most every NL player I have read about experienceing major downswings I felt like was not a good player\ a small winner.


[ QUOTE ]
I'd hate to see a guy go through a downswing and then say "well I'm done with this game/limit because this can't be bad luck" when it often can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think when people go through these downswings they should quit. They just shouldn't say the reason for this downswing is outside there control. They should analysis there game and see how they can improve. Every big downswing I have had has been caused by my poor play.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you use the word "variance" to describe how a small winner rationalizes why he isn't a big winner but I think more frequently variance causes a small winner or a slight loser to BE a big winner over some amount of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to address the players that think the reason for not moving up limits for the past year is due to there bad luck or variance. This may or may not be the thread to address those people.

[aba20]

Gleen,

I admit what I said didn't come across as I meant it to. I think I address most of what you said in my response to deathdonkey.

[Glenn]

Yeah deathdonkey made the same post while I was writing mine. Smart guy. I mostly agree with your clarification. Thanks.

[SA125]

Glad aba chimed in. Not because I agree with him, but because of the reasoning. He's a top player. Outside forces, etc. Good stuff. Looking forward to seeing him on HSP tonight.

[LearnedfromTV]

Hey guys. I'm just a lurker here and not even a limit player but I've done a decent amount of analysis of and thinking about variance, and there is one thing that isn't usually directly stated in these threads:

Whatever risk of ruin/probabilities of different sized downswings are implied by a given winrate and standard deviation, the actual swings you'll experience will be much wider. The reason is that you don't play all your hands with the same expected winrate and variance, but the simulations often quoted assume that you do.

This goes a lot deeper than the obvious case of tilting or chasing losses higher. If you have, say, a 1.0 bb/100 winrate over 1,000,000 hands, at any random table you sit down at you may usually have an edge between 0.5 and 1.5 bb/100, with different standard deviations depending on the type of play at the table. The fact that your wr/sd aren't constant means that over any shortish sample size, you'll be more likely to have an unusual distribution of tables, plus even if "it all averages out," you'll be playing a lot of hands in a more high-variance scenario than whatever your average expected wr/sd are. So the ror and downswing probabilities from simulations that assume wr/sd are constant will always underestimate.

Also, as many have said, with reference to very large sample sizes, your relative skill to that of your opponents will very widely over long periods of time.

The flip side, which I think aba is getting at, is that many of the things that affect whether a table is 0.5 bb/100 and high variance vs 2.0bb/100 and low variance are in fact under your control. That is, playing in good games, leaving when the game gets tough or you play bad or get tired, etc.

Thanks all for a good thread.

[ggbman]

Aba,

There is one thing is your post which rings very true. I think people (including myself at times) can often tend to attribute results to variance instead of focusing on their game.

However, while i think this point is critical, the rest of yor post simply is not accurate. I'm not sure if you read this thread, particularly my first post which contains some pretty concrete mathametics about thw swings that a 1 BB/100 winner would experience (And in high stakes limit games, that is a solid earn rate for good players to shoot for). It's a mathamatical fact that a certain percentage of players could not tilt and have MASSIVE downswings as indicated in my OP. I hate to have to keep going off about this, but it's simply mathamatical fact. That's just the obvious math, some poor schmucks will run MUUUCH WORSE than that and have downswings more scary than ones mentioned here purley do to variance.

Now FWIW, pretty much every good NL player i have talked has said that they think you are either the best NL player on the internet right now or hands down in the top 3. So what i'm saying here isn't meant to be an insult or in any way take away from your play, but people don't simply go for .5-1 NL to 300-600 NL in a year without running well above average. You could still be the best player in the world and this would be true, and IMO it has led you to conclude that variance is much less of a factor than it really is. (As anyone with your consistent sucess probably would) But just think of it logically. Imagine someone wh plays just like you, but lost 15-20 more 100K+ pots over the course of the year, mostly coinflips and maybe they don't hit a club against a set in a 250k pot [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], etc... Again, this is not at all an attempt to take away from your amazing accomplishments, but surely you see how easy it would be to have a 2 million dollar difference in results from a few pots going the other way. That should be an indicator that perhpaps you aren't considering how much variance can show itself in results. And of course, as i also said in my OP, the people who have run super bad because of variance for tons of hands are MUCH more prone to tilt or just incorrectly adjust to situations where their adjusts have been several standard deviations from normal of 50k+ hands.

Conclusion: I am jealous of you, but not enough to just pick apart what you are syaing randomly. I would love to pick your brain more given the oppurtunity someday. And i think the point about people quickly looking to attribute their contributions to variance in a nice addition to the thread. But the rest of your point comes off a bit poorly IMO, you have been playing online for something like a year right? Guys like BK, myself, baronzeus, etc... have all had a year without massive downswings and then had them in subsequent years. I'm not saying we have the same edge so it's more likely to some extent, but nevertheless, you have not seen it all yet and one day you will realize that you are simply way off in terms of how much you think variance affects your bottom line.

Gabe

[aba20]

Gabe,

I used to get bothered by people saying I ran good. Then I started reading other forums/ posts about other palyers who I considered good. I still read posts about how good ozzy, green plastic, empiremaker2, cts and stinger run. And honestly they don't run good they play good. So my post was more of the mindset I take when approaching the game. I look to myself for answers, and never say that things are outside my control.

[ QUOTE ]
but people don't simply go for .5-1 NL to 300-600 NL in a year without running well above average

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about going to 300/600 since less than 10 people even play in that game, but there have been tons of people who have done the .5/1->50/100 in a year and quite a few who have gone all the way up to 200/400. Just look at a guy like cts, in like 8 months he went from .5/1->200/400, and the reason isn't that he is some luckbox, its that he is a very good NLH player.

[ QUOTE ]
but lost 15-20 more 100K+ pots over the course of the year

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually much more improbable than you are making it out to be assuming the money went in as a 50/50.

Brian

[PartyGirlUK]

aba how many hands do you have over the past year?