MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Hock_]

Yes, this is a post about variance, but IMHO it's a subject that deserves more serious treatment than what's given in BBV, so I'm posting it here. Mods, if you think it should be moved then feel free.

So the question has often been asked: How big a downswing can a solid, winning player expect to experience playing high stakes LHE? [500BBs? hahahaha]

For pros and serious players this is a very important question; one that gets to the heart of bankroll management and other issues too -- including strategic issues if one starts adjusting based on short-term results.

bicyclekick provided one answer, but many dismissed it, explaining it away (a) as an anomaly; (b) by saying he lost his edge over his opponents; and/or (c) he was never any good to begin with.

I think that my experience over the last 2+ months should add something to the discussion. I think it's fair to say that I am a solid, winning player up to and including 200/400. I was near the top of the PStars win list compiled by baronzeus. For the first 3 months of the year I was running at 1.1BB /100 (163k hands); and since April 13 at 1.3BB/100 (46k hands).

It's the period from April 4-12 that this post is really about.

So here are a few graphs for the period from March 1 to May 7 that describe the situation better than any words could.

First, the entire period in BBs:

[image][/image]

Next, in dollars:

[image][/image]


Finally, here's just 100/200. My bread and butter game. That's right -- just shy of a <u>1000 BB</u> downswing:

[image][/image]

Ok, so a few observations and comments.

First, this insane downswing was not the result of tilt. I can't say I was 100% tilt-free, but I was actually pretty even-keeled throughout. To the extent I altered my game, it was to tighten-up just a little and play a little more passively (since it seemed that no matter what my hand was someone was going to suck out on me). No, I did not play my best throughout, but I think I actually saved myself a lot of bets by being more conservative than usual because, in fact, I just couldn't win a hand.

Just looking at parts of the graphs should show that the downswing wasn't the result of bad play. I mean there's one 400BB downswing where I basically didn't win a single hand. Nobody can play THAT badly.

Second, to the extent anyone needs convincing that this nearly 1000 BB downswing wasn't just because I suck, I think the graph immediately before and after the downswing goes a long way to refuting that. It's not like I was really good and then I sucked and then I was really good again. Not only that, but even during the downswing I was actually beating the 200/400 and 50/100 games. It was only the 100/200 game that I was losing in. People found lots of ways to dismiss bicyclekick's downswing as something other than variance, but I think it's a lot harder to dismiss this.

Third, was there anything I could have done differently? Sure, I can always improve my game. And I don't think I was necessarily playing my "A" game throughout. But I think I was playing pretty well. Whatever adjustments I could have made wouldn't have saved me more than 50-100BBs at most.

Finally, let me just say that although this is a little scary, it might also be reassuring to players who used to win but haven't lately. Bad runs can be much deeper and longer than many people think.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but I figured that given my situation (volume of hands, consistent success,etc.), this might be useful and interesting to some of you. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

[PartyGirlUK]

Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm doughnutz. Many posters probably think I play [censored] even when I'm winning [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But given the nice winning streaks immediately before and after, it's highly unlikely that my play varied enough to account for even a fraction of the change. (And I don't think it changed much at all)

[Schneids]

There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a stretch where you were playing bad IMO.

Also, I've recently held back from saying in chat, "doughnutz, bad run lately? You're playing a lot tighter now." This would be over the last few weeks, when it seems like you're playing noticeably more tight in comparison to when my view of you was an idiot maniac (see first comment above).

That's my honest view, since you came here looking for honest advice (and why I never made my comment in chat, since then you weren't soliciting thoughts).

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly appreciate the honesty, especially from a player whose game I respect as much as I do yours.

But a serious question: how do you know I'm playing tighter? I'm not saying I'm not, but how can you know? During this stretch my guess is that I was getting WAY fewer premium hands and I KNOW I was hitting no flops at all. So lots of folding preflop and on the flop without changing my game that much. So maybe I am still that idiot maniac (who by the way at least for the first several '000 hands was winning against you -- haven't checked recently).

Now, some players have adjusted to the way I play and I've adjusted back to take that into account. But I don't think my game is all that different from when I was (and am now again) winning 1+BB/100 at 100/200+.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you post your SN bcs Im sure plenty of posters will have played with you and could comment on whether you were playing [censored] or not.

D

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fairly useless. if he has been losing a ton of course everyone is gonna say he sucks and has been playing bad. they dont know what hes had, how colddecked hes been and all the other stuff. ive seen ugly variance (from myslelf and roommate) and heard from others like joshw and bk. i believe it.

dean, you simply dont understand long term implications of lhe. you sit back, smug and superior, bc it hasnt happened to you. the reason is that you havent played nearly as many hands as the rest and have been far luckier. gawd i remember when u lost 250bb and felt the world was ending. gimme a fckn break.

[daryn]

in all honestly (seriously) i don't know how you win money. maybe it's because your game is much better than mine and i'm missing something crucial.

i had to edit this post because it sounds sarcastic (especially that last bit) but i'm serious.

[Flintoff]

Posts like this give me some comfort. After running at 1.5 for 140K hands at 5/10 to 15/30 then go on a 600BB downswing....not nice. I packed in and took up NL!

Ok - wrong forum but in principal it's the same. I too felt there was little tilt. Maybe between 200-300BB. Then an eerie sense of calm set in where the beats just had no affect.

I apologise if I shouldn't be posting in here. I've had afew drinks!

[Hock_]

What's your name on Stars?

[sweetjazz]

Hock,

I don't play the high stakes games and consequently what I have to say is limited to general comments on variance. There have been various posts of mathematical models of the variance associated with limit hold em. The basic gist of it is this:

If you win more than 2 BB/100, then you're unlikely to experience very many large downswings (say 500BB+). Indeed, even 200-300 BB downswings will be pretty rare, though they will happen.

If you win less than 1 BB/100, you will experience large downswings on a not infrequent basis (perhaps once every couple of months for people who play a lot of hands). If you're actual rate is at 1 BB/100, the variance will probably be tolerable [depending on how much running bad leads to tilt] but unpleasant at times. When your winrate drops below that appreciably (say 0.5 BB/100), the downswings will be pronounced and fairly frequent. The bankroll requirements for such a game are quite high, and I suspect many (if not most) people don't have the self-control to maintain the bankroll and tilt avoidance necessary to maintain that slim edge in the long term.

Personally, the biggest weakness in my game BY FAR is having my play deteriorate when I run bad. I'd much rather win, say 2 BB/100 in a 10/20 game than 1 BB/100 in a 30/60, even though the latter is more money (numbers picked for simplicity -- not my actual winrates), because I'd prefer to end more sessions in the green and avoid pronounced downswings.

As far as what to do about variance, if I were you, I would strongly consider the possibility that your winrate is around 0.5 BB/100. This is likely an underestimate, but it's worth at least considering the worst case scenarios. Do the math to see what your bankroll requirements are. Make sure you are financially prepared for the downswings that will happen again. (This means both having enough liquid assets available and the ability to fund your account in a reasonable amount of time as needed. You might already have this covered, but I thought it should mentioned as something everyone should do for their own situation.) And then brace yourself psychologically for running bad. Honestly assess how you dealt with it this past time. If you managed to play reasonably well, even though not your "A" game, that's pretty good in my opinion. In my personal experience, I have found that my "A" game has, on a handful of occassions, deteriorated to a "C" or "D" game, where I was playing at best breakeven poker. That has been my sign to be careful and measured whenever I move up in limits. It sounds like you don't have this problem; unfortunately, you are playing in games where giving up even smaller edges can squeeze your already (relatively) thin edge in the game overall.

My suspicion (which isn't worth much given my lack of experience) is that the long-term high stakes winners will come in two varieties:
(1) A few players who are just significantly better than the others [the best of the best, if you will] who have higher true winrates and experience less frequent and less pronounced downswings.
(2) A few very good players who manage to consistently play close to their "A" game and/or are very careful with their bankroll management.

I suspect that the edge in the game is thin enough that people who are wasteful with their winnings and capable of tilting when running awful (which could happen even to someone who plays tilt-free "most" of the time) will end up going broke even if they are winners. Even if the high limit games are not at this stage yet, their eventual evolution to this point seems like a foregone conclusion. (Of course, it's not clear *how fast* that evolution will take place, and I have no intuition for this.)