Moving Up In Stakes

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there might some correlation between constantly having a halved stack by level 6, and only beating hte 6.50s for 3.5% (lol).

In Pokertracker, are you profitable at all blind levels.

Let's start with the 6.50s, as there is no point in discussing higher buy-ins when you hardly beat these micro stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no point in discussing anything with you. You've already made your diagnosis. Now all you want is more opportunities to take cheap shots.

Knock yourself out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the same logic can possibly be redirected at your posts.

Just keep playing and you'll have the same chance of running concurrent to your skill as anyone else. No point getting worked up in silly internet arguments. Good luck.

If you keep running bad, it might be a sign to tune up your game.

[Scotty_12]

[ QUOTE ]
sence,

I think it is possible to consider ones-self a top player at the game and level that they play and still maintain focus and study and improve. Part of being the best is admitting to yourself that you can never stop improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great post AMT

[blue10cj]

give up sng

[Tantalus747]

Guthrie, I just wrote you a long post that disappeared when I maximized a different window.

Basically it was about which belief would be more helpful to you... that you are in the top .1% for running bad or that you are playing suboptimally. It was a great post, but I concluded that you probably wouldn't listen anyway so I'm not going to try to reproduce it. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Your history is now too long at the 6.5s for anyone thinking rationally to conclude it's due to bad luck. Either embrace the idea your account is "doomswitched" and quit or the idea that maybe, just maybe you might have some leaks.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this with Guthrie is redundant. it's happened time and time again. He is one of the unlucky ones with a rigged account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people might think that moderators should refrain from making snide remarks, repeatedly.

[/ QUOTE ]


The only posts I've ever read by you always have to do with how unlucky you are. I don't recall seeing you on here posting hands and getting involved in productive discussions or doing anything but complaining about your rotten luck. For this reason I think it's fine for a mod (or anyone else) to take a shot at you because everybody gets sick of hearing the whining after a while.

Putting ourselves at risk of taking some [censored] for posting dumb or bad advice is part of the price we all pay when we're turning to strangers on the intertubes for advice. Live with it and learn or move on. It's not a valid excuse for why you don't get involved in strategy discussions.

Even if somehow your luck has been so bad that you are an outlier on luck graph -- which I don't happen to believe in your case -- I don't see how focusing all your attention on it is anything but detrimental. Focus your energy on improving instead, or just quit because otherwise you're just going to be unhappy.

And if you don't think a negative attitude creeps into your play you're wrong. An example being how you played the AA hand from the blinds in Atlantic Trout this week. Now maybe you're just fooling around blowing off steam in the trout games, but it appears to me that you're actually trying to play well most of the time. Now I know the money would have went in on that hand whether or not you raised preflop, and you would have got stacked, but checking from the BB and giving an EP limper a free flop when you have AA is just a fundementally poor play even in a trout game.

[Solanthos]

And also, just because a few people look at your hand histories and say, oh, there's nothing substantial doesn't mean there *isn't something substantial.* It just means that no one caught it.

I'd also be willing to bet that if someone looked objectively at your trends, like we are when we look at a graph of your play, they would say, "Yes, this guy has some leaks." Then if they looked objectively at a random selection of HH's instead of ones that you chose, and could have cherry-picked, to send them, there would be more substantial things found.

Also, you mentioned earlier that your graph would move steadily downward if you were a fish...

[ QUOTE ]

But let's humor the arrogant jerks and assume that I do have massive leaks, or, in other words, I'm a terrible fish. Why didn't my graph start out moving steadily downward? Why does it move up, then nose dive, then steadily move up before taking another nosedive? What kind of leak causes someone to win steadily for a few days, then lose almost every all-in for days?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you really, honestly, and truly believe that, then the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you don't understand statistics and variance very well. I can draw this conclusion from the fact that you think that your graph climbing upward for a few days means you're NOT a fish. Even the worst fish know that a bad player can still win, can start out winning, and can win steadily before taking a dive again.

In conclusion, you need to look at everything objectively instead of taking offense to when people on the internet say that you're not doing well. Despite the implied tone of telling someone that they aren't as good as they think they are, those people are actually trying to help you. Attacking these people will not help you learn, it will make you more bitter. If you can't do these things, then your best option is to quit playing SNGs and try something else.

[lacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I finally find a few non-jerks to review my HHs, they find no significant leaks, but according to you and the rest of the jerks I'm a terrible player. How exactly do you come to that conclusion without ever looking at a single hand of mine?


[/ QUOTE ]

Guthrie, you have significant leaks. If you think you don't, that itself is a significant leak.

I've been a fulltime pro for 4 years, and i have significant leaks that i work on constantly to improve my game. Jman wrote an article about having signifacant leaks he works on constantly. Jman crushes $25/$50 and up nl games.

If you really think your play is optimal, your fooling yourself. Watch instructional video's or known good player hand histories and everytime it's their turn to act pause it and decide what you would do. Any time they do something different, figure out why.

With the aditude that you play great but are unlucky you really dont deserve to make much from this game. The people that do are trying everyday to learn something new and get a little bit better.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like it if somebody could take all of their results and figure out their ROI variance and run some numbers on this stuff. As far as i can tell, everyone's variance for SnG's should be in the same neighborhood (maybe not exactly), even with expected ROI's that are very different. I wonder what can of variance and standard deviation a SnG player has on his ROI and what that means for a 10K games sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

The higher the ROI the lower the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no. A player with a higher ROI will have fewer/shorter breakeven/losing stretches, but that's because his ROI is farther above zero. Variance is SNGs in dictated primarily by the payout structure. A smaller factor is the player's finish distribution, at least with players in the -10% to 20% range. The higher ROI player will have a larger fraction of his results farther away from his most common result, that is a zero, so his mathematical variance will be higher.

You might mean "varience," which is what people like to call it when they run bad. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[dktoller]

Okay, enough. Aside from analyzing hand histories or speculating about leaks etc I wonder whether we can make some conclusions from Guthrie's graph (page 2 of the posts).

What I propose is a sequential correlation test on the data set. For a non-tiltable player (e.g. robot) the distribution of results for one day should look exactly like any other day. However if a player (e.g. me) often goes on tilt then today's session is likely to be poor if I did poorly yesterday. Conversely today's results might be more likely to be good if I did well yesterday.

I have a rough idea of how to approach it mathematically, but maybe a math/stats guy could chime in here? It seems to me such a correlation is likely to exist for most human players, and may add significantly to the risk of ruin, or at least extend really bad streaks.

[Slim Pickens]

The problem is that game conditions change over time, quite substantially is many cases. My guess is that most of the day-to-day correlation you'll see will be due to to that. You might get around that with an elaborate background fit, but by then there probably wouldn't be much of a sample left to analyze. Basically, you're trying to pick a very small variation out of a large signal with a lot of noise.