Variance in poker: Living with the Beast

[iponnet]

I like the thought and the work you put into this, but the sd you choose its a little more than usual, I think generally after 100K hands a winning or loosing player is about +/- 1PTBB/100 of their actual WR.... and it take alot more than luck for a -2ptbb/100 losing player to be break even after these many hands IMO

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the thought and the work you put into this, but the sd you choose its a little more than usual, I think generally after 100K hands a winning or loosing player is about +/- 1PTBB/100 of their actual WR.... and it take alot more than luck for a -2ptbb/100 losing player to be break even after these many hands IMO

[/ QUOTE ] See my response above to a similar statement.

[jhill3535]

not arguing one way or the other, but this is from my database

[GrandMelon]

where do you find that in PT?

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
where do you find that in PT?

[/ QUOTE ]

sessions tab >>>> more detail

[raistlinx]

A couple of people now have commented on the STDDEV being off so I thought I would do another graph.

Even if we change the STDDEV to 40 ptBB/100 insane things can happen. This is the 5ptBB/100 player over 6,500 hands.

http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.jpg

I'm not trying to say this extreme swings are likely to happen, only possible. The initial post was meant to say "hey, if you are running bad over a few 1000 hands, don't immediately think you suck and if you run crazy hot over a few 1000 hands don't come to the forums thinking you are God's gift to poker" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[QTip]

Solid thought process here. I really don't even care to see one updated with a different SD or winrate. I mean, when you're playing something like 8+ tables, these things could vary dramatically from table to table.

I do believe online playing has really opened the eyes of the poker world to the true beast the games is. I remember a few years ago reading some of the first books of the 2+2 authors and chuckling about some of the things I read. It was obvious that the phenomenon of a stretch of 100,000 hands hadn't even been touched at that point. I mean, to think of how long it would take to play that many hands live is stupid. Then to think about being a live pro is just as stupid. You should be independently wealthy already. I often wonder how many truly talented players quit playing live because they thought they couldn't beat the game after 6 months or whatever....and of course, visa versa. However, they only played the number of hands some of us play in a week.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of people now have commented on the STDDEV being off so I thought I would do another graph.

Even if we change the STDDEV to 40 ptBB/100 insane things can happen. This is the 5ptBB/100 player over 6,500 hands.

http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.jpg

I'm not trying to say this extreme swings are likely to happen, only possible. The initial post was meant to say "hey, if you are running bad over a few 1000 hands, don't immediately think you suck and if you run crazy hot over a few 1000 hands don't come to the forums thinking you are God's gift to poker" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, the link was invalid. Here it is for those intersted:

http://www.celticchef.com/poker/files/badrun2.JPG