Playing forever without a downswing? Is it possible?

sweeng8 · #1 06-06-2007, 05:38 AM

I have been playing for a couple of years, and picked the game up quickly. Until recently I always had the opinion that playing low limit poker, 0.5/1, was a guarenteed income, without varience, just because I never really experienced any. Of course people would chase all the time and bust you every now and then, but even if this happened a few times in a row it was so easy to just grind the money back that varience wouldnt really feel like a factor. I moved up to about 2/4 (NLH by the way) and was doing alright but found varience to be much bigger. Needed some of the money I made so cashed out lots, and since dropped down to 0.5/1.
Now I cant seem to get on a roll at all. Im either losing or breaking even everytime I play to either chasers or 2nd nut hands I cant put down- trips over trips on the flop, etc. This is really annoying seeing as I used to take these games for granted as an easy way to build up my bankroll.

Have I finally ran into big time varience, and how do I approach overcoming it? At these limits, im not going on tilt so if I keep playing then surely it will end sometimes soon... you would think. This started 1 month ago, and I took 1 week off came back and same thing continued to happen. I play with my friends and use pt so Im sure Im not playing badly, but cant seem to beat bad luck at the moment.
After 2 years of easy money, has varience just finally caught up with me?

El_Hombre_Grande · #2 06-06-2007, 07:09 AM

No. Its not possible. Thats the meaning of variance. The best players in the world would occasionally have losing sessions at suprisingly low levels of play. There are tons of mathematics on this; basically it involves your established win rate and standard deviation over time. Use the search function, and you'll find some pretty sophisticated stuff.

JavaNut · #3 06-06-2007, 07:11 AM

Contrary to my current location, I do not believe in downswings, variance yes, but not downswings. If you start losing regularily, change your game, take a break, plug the leaks, don't blame Lady Luck.

4CardStraight · #4 06-06-2007, 11:09 AM

I think this is a funny discussion.

Downswings should be welcome. They are what allow upswings.

Its like when people say in deep stack poker that they are always getting it in 90% ahead. Well, you give up an aweful lot of value not getting it in when your only 55% ahead in a cash game.

You should be pushing chips in when you are a favorite, and you have to understand that 45% of the time you will lose your 55/45, and its aweful easy to lose 9 in a row where your 55% to win. But you should still do it, and be happy that there is much variance in poker, as there are swings where you will win 11 in a row being ahead 55% to win, and they can only come as a result of someone elses downswing.

sweeng8 · #5 06-07-2007, 05:44 PM

i guess what i was getting it is that playing at a top level you will be happy to take a 55% edge anytime, whereas playing low limit I wont want to put my money in with a 55% edge as I figure dont really need that small edge. Hence playing at largest limits you need to take any edge you can get, but im theory can you play at a small enough limit where your edge is so great to cover any noticeable varience?

johnc · #6 06-07-2007, 09:23 PM

The sad truth about taking a 55% edge only tells you that if you take this edge over and over many times (long run) that you will truly see that 55%. You could lose that same 55% edge descision 20 times in a row (oh the pain!) and it will still be mathmatically correct to take it. Or conversly win it 20 times in row - I feel alot of players who claim to be winners fall into this last catagory - they just have experienced the "long run", yet......

jogsxyz · #7 06-08-2007, 02:44 AM

The donks are getting better. Look thru your records. The aggregate table VP$IP is lower now than two years ago.

JavaNut · #8 06-08-2007, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
...but im theory can you play at a small enough limit where your edge is so great to cover any noticeable varience?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you only get your money in when the opponents are drawing dead then a) they wont pay you that much and b) this happens very rarely. Only playing past the flop with the unbeatable nuts will be a losing strategy as the blinds will eat you.

So you will have to play more, much more after the flop.

Lets say you find a way to detect that your opponent at the turn only has 4 outs, and you push and get called. 4 outs is 11.5-1. A streak of losing 8 in a row of these is 1-27 million. With the number of pokerplayers in the world this happens every week. You will have to play a lot of hands to get 8 opportunities where your opponent has 4 outs, in which blinds will eat your stack, actually you will frequently have to reload during this period. And still you can risk having to reload 8-10 times due to suck-outs. This style can easily require 20-30 reloads just losing and never winning.

You can reduce variance with a tight aggressive style at lower levels, which is probably why TAGs are the ones often winning even if they make quite a few mistakes and it is so easy to cross the line from LAG to maniac.

Borys313 · #9 06-08-2007, 05:36 PM

Its amazing that you run so good for 2 years but the fact it ended is something that had to happen sooner or later.
Its really hard to play for so long and not get burned out, always keep 100% interest for the game, play only when in good form etc. And when a bad run of cards comes when you play far from your A game its really easy to start losing which eventually deteriorates your game to the point where you have no chance at all.

Think its best to take a few weeks off and find some other intelectual challenge like studing or a new game maybe backgammon or whatever. Trying to end the downswing the hard way never works.

Mad Cow · #10 06-08-2007, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i guess what i was getting it is that playing at a top level you will be happy to take a 55% edge anytime, whereas playing low limit I wont want to put my money in with a 55% edge as I figure dont really need that small edge. Hence playing at largest limits you need to take any edge you can get, but im theory can you play at a small enough limit where your edge is so great to cover any noticeable varience?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how bad the opponents are, how good you are, and what you mean by "noticeable variance". So, there is no "in theory".

If you are a risk-adverse strong player, and you have a big bankroll, you can of course minimize the variance to a point where it becomes practically negligible. But most people prefer maximizing profit, and it implies a higher variance. It makes poker more fun.