Question for David Sklansky or other probability/poker theory experts

[soon2bepro]

I'd really like it if David could answer this question, but I'd appretiate other opinions aswell.

I'm sorry if this is too long. I think I can express myself better this way.

My question is, over many many played hands, how do you really tell if you've just gotten a huge streak or if the numbers more or less suggest your level of advantage/disadvantage over the field?

I understand that the bigger the sample, the more it should tend to approach you real numbers, but my question is not so much about what number of hands should determine this, but something else.

Here's my current situation that I'll use as an example.

I am much more of a theoretical person than a "feeling" one, for poker and mostly everything else, so you can trust that what I'm saying is a pretty objective analysis of the situation.

I've been a winning player in both limit and no limit hold'em for about a year, say from mid 2005 to mid 2006 (I was a winner from the moment I started playing for real money, which was after reading several poker books). But from then until now I've been losing at about 4 big blinds/100 hands in NL cash over 125k hands, whereas I was winning twice that much last year over 70khands (I played a lot of limit poker back then, that's why my NL sample is smaller for that period).

Through the last year, I've continued to extend my skill and understanding of poker. And I definitely consider myself a much better player than I was a year ago.

I understand the games I'm playing, and I understand the players. I'm pretty certain they're so bad on average, I could play on auto pilot and still beat them with ease. But the thing is that I just keep losing.

A pot here, a pot there. A huge load of bad beats, although I really couldn't say how large given the huge sample. It's gotten to the point that when I sit to play I feel I'm losing money, and that I just need to see it happen to believe it.

My poker playing friends (all consistent winners, some at high stakes) don't understand this either. Some of them say they see some flaws in my game, but nothing this big.

Now my question is, if everything else tells you it's just bad luck, does the large sample of hands make a big difference? How much so?

I have no reason to believe there is cheating going on (I play at partypoker), and I don't want to sound superstitious, because I'm not, but whenever I play in another account or another site, I seem to win. Even in homegames with my tough friends (who are really not so tough playing live for small money, to be honest). It's just that I play mostly in this account and this site because I calculate that it has the highest profitability.

As an aside, I'll ask: What would you suggest I do? Should I keep playing here as long as my bankroll is healthy enough? Should I seriously consider re-evaluating my whole game? Should I move to another site or account solely on the extremely unlikely possibility that this may have something to do with it?

[JavaNut]

The simple answer is that you have some leaks in your game, that your opponents exploit, knowingly or most likely unknowingly.

I have had this happen to me as well, when I changed from playing pokerroom skins to carbon poker, from being a constant winner to barely holding on, I played the same style without changing to accomodate the different style played at carbon poker.

You must look into your own game and find the things that you do, that simply does not work anymore. You might be stabbing at pots too often, stealing blinds too often, bluffing too often etc.

If you are that much better a player than your opponents, then you will win steadily even when you are unlucky.

Theoretically a downswing can last 6 months, but it is highly unlikely that a winrate goes from 4BB/100 to -3BB/100 for any longer period of time even a couple of weeks is very long time if you play 4-500 hands a day and given that you have a great edge on your typical opponent.

[zeppo]

If you lose consistently on one site, and win consistently on every other, am I the only one thinking this is a no-brainer???

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
You must look into your own game and find the things that you do, that simply does not work anymore. You might be stabbing at pots too often, stealing blinds too often, bluffing too often etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm already doing that. It doesn't seem to be that way. At least not for this amount. I mean I'm talking about players who would consistently lose money to bots, and most of the time I'm playing a strategy not trying to adjust to anyone's particular mistakes. Only when I get to know a particular player do I act on my knowledge of him. And it seems to work.

[ QUOTE ]

If you are that much better a player than your opponents, then you will win steadily even when you are unlucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't play an infinite amount of hands. What I'm asking is how to measure the validity of the statistical sample over more localized rational analysis.

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically a downswing can last 6 months, but it is highly unlikely that a winrate goes from 4BB/100 to -3BB/100 for any longer period of time even a couple of weeks is very long time if you play 4-500 hands a day and given that you have a great edge on your typical opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

How unlikely?

And how do I tell if that's what's really going on or not?

[Phone Booth]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically a downswing can last 6 months, but it is highly unlikely that a winrate goes from 4BB/100 to -3BB/100 for any longer period of time even a couple of weeks is very long time if you play 4-500 hands a day and given that you have a great edge on your typical opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

How unlikely?

And how do I tell if that's what's really going on or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're much more likely to die in the next month or so than it is that you've been bplaying winning poker. Unless the a priori probability that you're a winning player is exceptionally high. What constitutes winning poker depends on what your opponents are doing as much it depends on your own strategy, so it's possible that the same strategy you've been using has gone from +EV to -EV.

[Gigglegirl]

If you're sitting down "feeling you're losing money......just need to see it", I'd say your confidence is shot.
Playing the game with that mindset is a horrible feeling and we've all felt it at some stage.

Confidence is such an important part of the game that I'd suggest you move down in stakes until you become a winning player again.
Just my 2 cents.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the a priori probability that you're a winning player is exceptionally high.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, I think it is. What do you mean by exceptionally high by the way?


[ QUOTE ]
so it's possible that the same strategy you've been using has gone from +EV to -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been playing a single robotic strategy all this time. My core strategy has improved a lot, and I'm adapting to my opponent's particular play style quite a bit.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Confidence is such an important part of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

This only applies if low confidence hurts my game, and I don't think it does, not that much anyway. Besides I only started losing confidence well after I started losing.

[AaronBrown]

The way this question is phrased contains assumptions. You have some "true" winrate, but you don't know what it is. Your sample of hands is an observation of this winrate, with some noise. Your logic tells you the winrate is positive, but the observation shows statistically convincing evidence that it's negative.

I think you've let the statistics get in the way of your poker. Poker is about getting a feel for the table and finding a way to win regardless of the playing styles of the other players, and whether the cards are running hot or cold. I don't say you always succeed (I don't, anyway), but that's the point of the game.

Therefore, on the way to losing 5,000 big blinds, I expect to hear that you have tried many adjustments and alternate strategies. I'd like to know what happened. Did none work? Did all work for a while, then reverse? Were you unable to determine the cause of losses? Were you able to determine the cause of losses, but not come up with a strategy to reverse them?

Without this information, it's hard to know what to advise. If you're playing mechanical poker and losing, the most likely explanation is you're playing losing poker. If you're constantly adjusting and losing, the most likely explanation is you're adjusting wrong. This stuff isn't complicated, it's only that people like to make it complicated.

[Phone Booth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless the a priori probability that you're a winning player is exceptionally high.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, I think it is. What do you mean by exceptionally high by the way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if the a priori probability that you're a winning player is 1, then no amount of new information will change that probability. Otherwise, you can apply bayesian probability. In this particular case, I think the a priori probability needs to be > .999 at least for there to be even 50% chance that you're a winning player. But that's off the top of my head - you can do the precise math yourself. I'm sure someone has run that badly while playing well before, but it's highly, highly, unlikely that you're that player. But note that for any value p between 0 and 1, there's some value q such that if the a priori probability that you played winning poker is q, then the a posteriori probability is p. So the sample doesn't give you any information, without knowing the a priori probability. But never underestimate the power of denial.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so it's possible that the same strategy you've been using has gone from +EV to -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been playing a single robotic strategy all this time. My core strategy has improved a lot, and I'm adapting to my opponent's particular play style quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people think they are adapting but that doesn't mean they are adapting correctly. Most of what I hear from poker players in terms of how they tend to adjust in different games is just completely wrong, for instance.