Variance

[bbbushu]

BK,

good luck building back up.

bbbushu

[bicyclekick]

apparetnly that 4bb/100 is sustainable ;P



And that's without a session where I won like 60 bets in a couple hundred hands :/

LHE is so dumb. I can't win a hand for 4 months, now I can't lose one. 615 bets. Almost out baby.

[siegfriedandroy]

congrats on the turn around. is this unfiltered, or do you play at 40/30 in 6max? wtsd equals 41!!?? how do you guys do this - i dont understand! mine is like low 30's (at most), and i feel like i showdown too much at times. i dont feel like im being bluffed too much or anything, either. if i was showing down that much, i feel like id be calling sometimes when absolutely certain im beaten. teach me, bk and schneids!!

[bicyclekick]

Nah it has some huhu vs donkeys and some 3 handed etc. 6max i'm like 30/21. I just don't fold. I think i was folding a little too much during my streak (but then again i never had anything and they did) but yeah I just call call call a lot more, peal flops with ahnds that seem kinda stupid to call with etc). My HU sd stats are 44/49 lol. SHOWDOWN MONKEY. In the schneider match they were 54/56 hahahaah the kid doesn't fold ever.

I pretty much try not to make big folds.

I've also only been playing 3 or so tables. Sometimes less, so I have really good situational reads on players.

[admiralfluff]

[ QUOTE ]
these are "bankroll requirements" with a 5% risk of ruin. that's their chance of going busto without ever adding to or removing from their bankrolls. in other words, there's a 5% chance they'll have a downswing that big starting right now. over a long time period, they're almost certain to have a downswing that big.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If RoR is quoted as a scalar quantity, it should be convergent for positive WR. Otherwise a sample would have to be assigned.

In otherwords, if you have an given initial bankroll that you do not adjust and a calculated RoR of 5%, there is a 5% chance that you will hit 0 over infinite iterations.

I think if you want to calculate your RoR resetting your bankroll every N hands (paying yourself) it is a much more complicated problem.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you want to calculate your RoR resetting your bankroll every N hands (paying yourself) it is a much more complicated problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by resetting you mean removing all your winnings, your RoR is 100%.

[admiralfluff]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you want to calculate your RoR resetting your bankroll every N hands (paying yourself) it is a much more complicated problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not. If you have bankroll B, and play N hands before resetting B, you should be able to calculate RoR for this scenario (r) using a stat tool or jibber jabber.

Then long term RoR is:

R = r + (1-r)*r + (1-r)^2*r + ... (1-r)^oo*r
R * (1-r) = r*(1-r) + (1-r)^2*r + ... (1-r)^oo*r

R-R(1-r)=r
R = r/(1-(1-r))
R = 1 for all r>0

Well poop. I'm sure someone has proved this here before, but it's news to me. If you reset your bankroll every N hands (I do it every month) at some point you will have to move down or go robusto.

The good news is that this analysis is likely irrelevant because it is based on rare events in a normal distribution, when in fact, the tails of the BB/100 distribution are decidedly anormal (the whole thing may be significantly anormal, but I don't think anyone has done the analysis).

For example, If I have a BR of 13BB, and reset my BR every hand, the math (assuming normal distribution) will say that r is nonzero, and R is 1, when in fact both are 0.

Also, RoR is not a measure of likelihood of having a X BB ds in N hands. If you play oo hands the likelihood of having a XBB ds in N<oo hands is 1. (Again, based on the flawed assumption of normalcy).

[admiralfluff]

By resetting I mean removing all winnings, or replacing all losses.

I always knew RoR was 1 if you remove all winnings, but I thought replacing losses might result in <1 convergence.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
these are "bankroll requirements" with a 5% risk of ruin. that's their chance of going busto without ever adding to or removing from their bankrolls. in other words, there's a 5% chance they'll have a downswing that big starting right now. over a long time period, they're almost certain to have a downswing that big.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If RoR is quoted as a scalar quantity, it should be convergent for positive WR. Otherwise a sample would have to be assigned.

In otherwords, if you have an given initial bankroll that you do not adjust and a calculated RoR of 5%, there is a 5% chance that you will hit 0 over infinite iterations.

I think if you want to calculate your RoR resetting your bankroll every N hands (paying yourself) it is a much more complicated problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be mistaken but I think these RoR's are calculated as % of times you go broke before doubling your bankroll. Not that important for what you're saying though.

[phish]

No, I think RoR is calculated as the amount you can blow at the dice table as a % of the months you have to cheat and scam to make your rent payments. Think I read this in the Theory of poker.