Insane variance the last two month

[Apanage]

Maybe this is a BBV post. But I think that people can look at this and see what variance can do in shorthandgames.
Maybe it is comforting, maybe it is a nightmare.
I never had a downswing larger than 170 BB before march 2007 and was absolutely convinced that it was impossible to have this kind of variance during such a short period.

Take a good look between 13K and 22K.

[timoK]

dude, I had like 2 of these downswings each month this year [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[TheWunderkind]

looks standard

[elffaw]

small edge after rake + lhe + shorthanded = [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[JaredL]

I'd rather look at 42-50K

[sethypooh21]

Super duper standard - however, I think we should save this graph to point to any time someone asks about the swings.

Ap is a strongly winning player, yet look at the number of 100BB plus downswings he's had...

[Apanage]

Yes that is also part of the variance.

1K-8K +480 BB
13K-22K -380BB
42K-50K +380 BB

I remember posting my 13K-22K downswing and Leader calculated that the risk of this happening, given that I´m a 1.9BB winner which I was before the downswing , was 0.02% or something.
Even if it is not that unlikely that I have such upswings as in this sample it still must be very unlikely.
And still posters think this is standard.

[elffaw]

You were a 1.9BB winner? Over how long?

[Apanage]

I think the swings in itself are standard.Losing 200 BB or a little more is not uncommon. But to lose 380BB in 9K hands is insane and so are also winning 480 BB in 8K hands IMO.
Your idea is great though. We should take this graph and a couple more from other players and save them to show both what can happen in extreme cases and what size on downswings one can expect playing shorthanded.

[Apanage]

When Leader calculated it I think it was 138K or something.
Anyway the figures he was calculating from was the figures that showed the likelihood of the downswing so the sample size really don´t matter now.