Losing streaks

[mcj0014]

Anybody ever gone 26 $10 at PP with 2 seconds and 1 third or something comparable? I was wondering if that might be a record or something.

[J.A.Sucker]

I've gone 16 215's without cashing, and have also cashed only once in 12 215's before. Things are tough when you can't win any coinflipish run-offs.

[mcj0014]

Well, that's somewhat reassuring. $200's way tougher than $10's. But I guess variance is probably lower though right?

[J.A.Sucker]

Variance will be much higher in the higher limit tourneys. The extra chips don't overcome the higher level of ability. That said, you will have long streaks of winning and losing. I've also won three 215's in a row a few times. That makes for a nice evening, BTW.

[Jurollo]

I have gone on a comparable streak in the $20's. In fact just came out of a horrible streak of about 150 with a negative ROI, and this is for someone who never has really been below 20% ROI long term. So it happens, that is the thing with SNGs, especially low limit, the variance is through the roof, if you have had long term success in the past, 1000+ tournies, then you just need keep plugging away, making sound decisions and you will continue to win long term.

[mcj0014]

Cool. I know. The longer it goes the harder it is to swallow. Just keep hanging on. It is nice to have poker tracker and be able to go back through the hands and reevaluate your play. Yep, I had the best of it there and there and there and .... It really does make a difference.

[Jurollo]

I play the $20's exclusively and cashout each week everything but $600, I rarely drop below $500 ever and during this streak my BR got low enough where after my current set of 4 my BR couldnt even handle playing 4 more at a time, luckily I got 3-1sts last night in a set and my BR is on the rebound back to $380.

[ccartman2]

I'm wondering how many of your losing streaks were after cashouts? I cashed out twice from party poker and transferred some to a friend once, and all three times the cards seemed like they were frozen. I know Poker has it's cold streaks so I'm not complaining about that.

[Irieguy]

If you are a serious SNG player, you are not a winner unless the following has happened:

-You have gone more than 12 SNGs in a row without a cash
-You have gone more than 25 SNGs in a row without a 1st
-You have had a run of 100 SNGs with a negative ROI

I know it might sound strange to say that these things happen only to winners, but hear me out. If these things haven't happened to you, you either haven't played enough to know for sure that you are playing winning poker, or you are actually losing and you are not able to fund the game regularly enough to encounter these inevitable streaks... either way, you can't say for certain that you are a winner.

Irieguy

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it might sound strange to say that these things happen only to winners, but hear me out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet they happen to losers too...

[Lori]

-You have had a run of 100 SNGs with a negative ROI

If this happens, you are playing too big.

The hourly SD on low limit Sngs is under 2 buyins, whilst the win rate is over half a buyin, you should not manage a loss over 100 SNGS

Lori

[LinusKS]

That's only if you think you have an ROI of over 50%.

At 25% ROI, your chances of a net loss in 100 tournies are about 15% - not too far from the chances of having aces cracked. And a hell of a lot better than having aces cracked twice in one tournament.

[LinusKS]

On the other hand, a 50% ROI on a $5 game is not as good as a 25% ROI on a $20 game, if you can stand the variance.

I'd argue you're probably playing too small, if you're holding out for a near-zero chance of loss out of 100.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
-You have had a run of 100 SNGs with a negative ROI

If this happens, you are playing too big.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this is just so wrong, as has already been stated with a 50% ROI a negative 100 is less likely but whatever people think its still possible. Hope it keeps working out for you.

Regards Mack

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
-You have had a run of 100 SNGs with a negative ROI

If this happens, you are playing too big

The hourly SD on low limit Sngs is under 2 buyins, whilst the win rate is over half a buyin, you should not manage a loss over 100 SNGS

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Lori, you make that statement as though it is a fact of low limit SNGs. I'm pretty sure the hourly SD and win rate will depend on the player's skill... specifically his or her ITM% as Linus explains.

Perhaps you won't ever have a 100 SNG run with a negative ROI if your ITM% is more than 50%, but that is a super-mortal number even among experts. I'm glad you are able to acheive it, but I've never heard of anybody else sustaining an ITM% over 45% for more than 1000 SNGs.

When you say that a losing streak of 100 SNGs means you are playing too big, I would say that if it isn't happening to you, you are playing too small. I'm not trying to tell you to move up... it's none of my business. But I think it's fair to say that most players won't have a 50% ITM rate for too long before they venture into deeper waters.

I think the points about losing streaks I mention above apply to anybody whose been winning for more than 500 SNGs but who isn't the winningest SNG player alive.

Respectfully,
Irieguy

[willie]

this thread is reassuring to me. and after reading the Psychology of poker i hate to blame losses on bad luck, but a lot of the time, that's what happens to me.

i feel that i can easily handle an itm finish with 3 or so out of the money finishes thereafter, but occassionally i'll hit a streak of about ten sit and goes where i lose every coinflip, every hand that i have dominated (ie ak vs a9 lastnight /images/graemlins/grin.gif), and so on. it's just the nature of the game though.

once the beats stop piling up, i usually dig myself out pretty quickly, but it is annoying to play as well as i possibly can, get in with the best of it and get ousted repeatedly.

i guess that losing streaks happen to everyone though /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Tosh]

I really disagree, I don't think its uncommon for even the best SNG players on here to have 100 SNG streaks with a loss.

[Lori]

but I've never heard of anybody else sustaining an ITM% over 45% for more than 1000 SNGs.

If this is true, I'm utterly amazed.


I'm not trying to tell you to move up... it's none of my business.

For future reference, despite my usual bluntness, you are welcome to make "Lorinda earning more money" your business, I'm quite open about everything apart from who I am, and any suggestions, silly, sensible, rude or polite are always welcome.

But I think it's fair to say that most players won't have a 50% ITM rate for too long before they venture into deeper waters.

I've kind of shrugged off these comments in the past, but there are so many of them in the thread that I'm going to have to reconsider my posting style slightly.

Wow this is just so wrong, as has already been stated with a 50% ROI a negative 100 is less likely but whatever people think its still possible. Hope it keeps working out for you

I'm aware that it's possible, but according to Statking, I will 'never' (3 SD's I believe) have a 19 buyin downswing.

On the other hand, a 50% ROI on a $5 game is not as good as a 25% ROI on a $20 game, if you can stand the variance.


Sadly (I'm in mostly $11s FWIW) I believe that the drop from 50% to 26% (Just guessing to make it 'worth' moving up) would raise my variance too much.
For reasons that have been documented many times in the zoo, my roll = earnings trap is still prevailent, although gradually getting better.
I do move up from time to time (Have done well and spent time in the 50s)

There is also something slightly unique about my play, I seem to be the only player here who has a higher hourly rate! at UB AND Stars than Party. (Yes I do adjust my game and posts at Party)

Edit: That should of course be winnings = expenses trap.
(It's early)
Lori

[Kirkrrr]

... and I kick myself if I go for more than 3 SnG's without taking 1st at least once. This is definitely something to think about.

Kirk R.

[LinusKS]

I talked about this before, but -

If you only had to make two all-in decisions to make the money, and if you were guaranteed to be a pretty substantial favorite each time, (say, 60/40), that only gets you a 36% ITM.

Even if you could be guaranteed to be a 70/30 favorite each time, that still only gets you to 49% ITM.

And that assumes you never run into AA or KK, or that you never run into a situation where your opponent has a better hand than you.

[Lori]

If you only had to make two all-in decisions to make the money, and if you were guaranteed to be a pretty substantial favorite each time, (say, 60/40), that only gets you a 36% ITM.


But one will often do, and quite often zero.

Your point is taken and understood, but although sometimes you need zillions of all-ins in one tourney, needing two is only common, it's not an average.

Edit: I would say I make the money 80% of the time that I double through, now let's just say that I double through around 60% of the time.... There's my 48%

Lori

[parappa]

I've recently gone through almost 100 sngs at negative ROI and a subsequent 50 at around break even. For my part, this was NOT an ordinary fluctuation--I was playing badly, making all-ins that felt justified and aggressive but were really loose and unjustified.

The thing is, I was getting my money in with the best hand most of the time, I was just getting it all in too too many times per tournament.

My take is that while people will tell you that an OOM streak of 8 or 10 is statistically insignificant and it probably is, all the signs were there after 10 games. I could've diagnosed the problem at that point but didn't. After 10 bad ones I told myself that it was a downswing, after 20 I was worried, and after 50 I had no idea what to do. It still took me a while to figure out using pokertracker what I was doing wrong, because it felt like I was playing correctly.

My new resolution is to go through my game with a fine-tooth comb if I have a negative ROI for 10 games. Perhaps the results are insignificant, but it doesn't cost anything to look at them all, and it could cost a lot if you don't.

I've recovered my losses, but it was as if I didn't play for 3 weeks.

So, my point is, be very sure that it's just a downswing before concluding that it's bad luck. There's something in supersystem where doyle says that if he loses a certain number of sessions in a row, something might be wrong but if he loses (i think 5) something is _definitely_ wrong and he has to figure out what it is.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, you will have long streaks of winning and losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious, are you saying that your winning streaks in higher/better quality games, are longer? Or are you just saying that you can still get some long winning streaks, despite stronger opposition.

[reecelights]

Now that you mention it...I cashed out last week and then went 12 straight out of the money. I seem to remember this happening before as well. Probably just paranoia. It's probably like the guys who push with KK and find themselves called by AA only to say "That ALWAYS happens."

It doesn't always happen, maybe 1/5 cashes. Maybe I get overconfident after cashing and don't play as well. But then again, it was fishy enough that I noticed it too.

[Irieguy]

I think this is a potentially dangerous line of thinking. I agree that it's very important to continually look for leaks in your game, but it is not appropriate to use short-term statistics to identify them. Let me give you a common example that I see on this forum:

Player A is a skilled SNG player, and he is making appropriate adjustments to beat the game at just about its beatable limit. But he/she is running just a little hot over his first 300 SNGs and has an ITM% of 49% with an ROI of 39%. But more importantly, he's playing the right way. Then a little bad streak happens and he doesn't have a first place finish for 27 SNGs in a row. Instead, he has some bad luck shorthanded and has an abundance of 3rds. At first he realizes this is just a bad run, but as the OOTMs and 3rds continue to pile up, he decides there must be something wrong. He reviews several HH's and decides that he is not being aggressive enough on the bubble, and continues to squeek into 3rd without enough chips too often... so he makes an adjustment and starts pushing more on the bubble.

Here's the problem: it is unlikely that somebody playing expert SNG strategy can make an adjustment like that and have it be correct. It will probably have devastating long-term effects on his ROI... all because he let a statistically insignificant run of bad cards convince him that he was playing badly.

I try very hard not to do that. I read, write, and think about poker all the time to reinforce correct concepts. I review HH's semi-randomly to look for tactical leaks, and discuss situations daily with an expert SNG player. But when I'm in the middle of a 100 SNG losing streak (which I assure you will happen to everyone but Lori) I don't start tweaking my game. I really believe it's dangerous... unless, of course, you are playing badly to begin with. But after 500-1000 SNGs you should know that.

Play the right way,
Irieguy

[Lori]

People should remember that even at 50% (A nice easy number to use, not a comment on previous discussions) they will finish OOTM four in a row once in 16 and eight in a row once in 256.

For numbers nearer 40% , these streaks will be even scarier.

Lori

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
it is not appropriate to use short-term statistics to identify them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I agree that a 300 (let's say) negative ROI streak can be significant enough that you could mathematically conclude that you were playing badly without looking at anything else, a much shorter sample can tell you that you might be doing something wrong, and a look into your HHs with some feedback from others can confirm or deny it. The cost of doing this: $0. The cost of not doing it: Perhaps $0, perhaps more.

I believe that if you have an ITM% of something like 40-50% and you go 10 or 12 games without making the money, you should be looking for something wrong with your game, just as if you were drawing cards for red and black and drew 12 reds in a row you'd check to see if the deck had been shuffled. If you look at your games and find that you've had it all in with much the best hand twelve times in a row and have lost all 12 (or whatever), then you have to accept it as a bad run. But I personally lost a lot of money by making this my first, rather than my last, hypothesis.

Of course this will be dependent upon experience, but I've exchanged HH's with the original poster and am familiar with his level of play. He's a solid 10+1 player who is still developing his game. I don't think he'd object to this characterization.

Here's the problem imo:

[ QUOTE ]
Let me give you a common example that I see on this forum:

Player A is a skilled SNG player, and he is making appropriate adjustments to beat the game at just about its beatable limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that if he knows this, then it would be premature to look for leaks, but many of us only have enough games to think that we know it.

I don't think that it makes sense to say something like "you've only played 200 sngs, your results might not be significant" when someone makes a post to say that they're winning, but then turn around and say "you've got a background of 200 sngs, don't assume there is a leak in your game just because you're losing."

My own game has gone through 2 bad losing streaks. The first, when I was playing 5+1s, I was re-examining my game after every loss, which had terrible results because I was stabbing around in the dark. Once that cleared itself up, I swung to the other extreme for my next losing streak--I assumed that I was just having a bad run, and given my resolution not to re-examine my game after every bad patch, I let it go on for much too long. Probably it was a necessary stage in my development, but it now feels like I was just being pigheaded.

[ QUOTE ]
But he/she is running just a little hot over his first 300 SNGs and has an ITM% of 49% with an ROI of 39%. But more importantly, he's playing the right way. Then a little bad streak happens and he doesn't have a first place finish for 27 SNGs in a row. Instead, he has some bad luck shorthanded and has an abundance of 3rds. At first he realizes this is just a bad run, but as the OOTMs and 3rds continue to pile up, he decides there must be something wrong. He reviews several HH's and decides that he is not being aggressive enough on the bubble, and continues to squeek into 3rd without enough chips too often... so he makes an adjustment and starts pushing more on the bubble.

Here's the problem: it is unlikely that somebody playing expert SNG strategy can make an adjustment like that and have it be correct. It will probably have devastating long-term effects on his ROI... all because he let a statistically insignificant run of bad cards convince him that he was playing badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, and perhaps more likely for non-experts, he is playing badly.

[ QUOTE ]
But when I'm in the middle of a 100 SNG losing streak (which I assure you will happen to everyone but Lori) I don't start tweaking my game. I really believe it's dangerous... unless, of course, you are playing badly to begin with. But after 500-1000 SNGs you should know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be a question of level here. I absolutely believe that you could go through a negative ROI 100 sngs at the 200+15--this must be true because the edges are much smaller and your game if you're playing at that level is much more solid. But it must, by definition, be much harder to have a negative ROI at 10+1. If Lori (for example) goes through a negative 100 sngs at 10+1, my opinion is that it is much more likely that she isn't playing her best than that she's having a terrible run of luck.

I do see your point though, and I actually do agree with it. There's kind of a chicken-and-egg question going on here imo.

[Irieguy]

"I believe that if you have an ITM% of something like 40-50% and you go 10 or 12 games without making the money, you should be looking for something wrong with your game..."

See, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you have an ITM% of 40-50%, why would you suddenly start playing losing poker? You don't forget how to play. In fact, the opposite occurs... with more experience and study, you get better.

You are suggesting that if you are losing, it is more likely to be due to bad play than bad luck. This is ONLY true if you are not a winning player.

I think that at the core of our difference in opinion is the common mis-use of statistical terms on this forum. If somebody says "my ITM% is 45%," then they better have a confidence interval of at least 95% (about 300 SNGs at that rate). The problem is that people use that term to describe the frequency with which they have happened to finish in the money over the past few SNGs they have bothered to record. In those cases, I agree with you: if you are running bad, you are probably playing bad. But the explanation for that is not that their 10 OOTM run is significant- it's that if you play poker, you are more likely to be a loser than a winner.

Irieguy

[Lori]

Just to show what can happen short term, here's my stats since I came back in early August.

I have only included $11 sngs, but the pattern was similar at all levels.
The sample is tiny because I've been working off bonuses and stuff at other sites and I also had to build up to the roll where I even figured I had a chance at the $11 level.

(Pokerstars)
Format 1sts-2nds-3rds-Oths

First 11: 4-2-2-3
Next 11: 0-0-1-10
Next 11: 3-0-5-3
Final 11: 4-2-1-4

The point of this is not to show off, but I felt I was running terribly when actually I was running well, but the 12-22 bracket had led me to believe that I was having a terrible time.
It also shows just how hideous a sample of 11 can be.
(Obviously I have chosen steps of 11 for maximum effect after a little thought, but it stuck out a mile on my stats)

Also note, for obvious reasons, I don't consider stars in my 48-50% claims.

Lori

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
See, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you have an ITM% of 40-50%, why would you suddenly start playing losing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're tired, bored, haven't had enough sleep, are on tilt, are playing too many tables at once, or are simply playing lazy. In my case, it was because my game was developing and, in the interest of being more aggressive to deal with the problem you alluded to (too many 3rds and not enough 1sts), I decided that I should be more aggressive on the bubble. I ramped up the aggression, hit a 100-tourney sweet spot, but kept ramping it up until I was pushing A3o from the CO with 10xbb in my stack and lamenting my bad luck because KTo had outdrawn me. A cursory look at the HH's had me saying "yep, had the better hand there, bad luck." but missed the point. After a long time, I found the mistake, tightened back up, and my results immediately improved.

I do agree, however, that this is such a horrible error that most players wouldn't suffer from it.


[ QUOTE ]
You are suggesting that if you are losing, it is more likely to be due to bad play than bad luck. This is ONLY true if you are not a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I think that this is a gross oversimplification. Over 600 sngs, I'm a winning player. Over 150 of those, I'm a losing player. I was a losing player during those 150 because I was playing badly. It wasn't bad luck. I was calling down all-ins with 77 and pushing KQs back into 10+1 limpers.

As I say, it's possible that I'm the only one whose game (I mean, the decisions I make with cards in front of me) isn't a static, upward-sloping learning curve, and that everyone else is always playing their best, but over 600ish games, there is a strong correlation in my play between making mistakes and losing streaks.

[Lori]

A lot depends on WHY you are getting a lot of thirds.

I get some extra money because I convert some utterly dead tourneys into third places, I get some money more because when I'm flying, I try to win the tourney, and then ease off the pedal if things go nasty.

A lot of third places can be a good thing, but it depends on why they are occuring.

Lori

[Gramps]

When I first read this post, it was with the comfort that my biggest OTM streak was 11 - after > 1,000 SNGs at the 100 & 200 levels on Party...

...then I hit the absolute mother of all OTM streaks. My luck's been perfectly fine over the long run, but it was ABSOLUTELY GOD AWFUL for a short stretch. Overpairs getting cracked by underpairs. Dominating hands losing to the under-kicker pairing. Losing every important coin flip - usually after being ahead til the River...etc., etc., y'all know the story...

...22 SNGs in a row OTM...less than a 1 in 10,000 shot of that happenning based on my ITM%...and in reviewing my play, I'd have changed two things I did...

...point being sh-t happens every now and then (and once in a blue moon extra stinky, super-foul smelling sh-t happens). That's what a bankroll is for. If you have a fat bankroll for the stakes you're playing, then just keep playing your A game, maintain your confidence, and it'll continue to be all good in the long run.

[J.A.Sucker]

As the players get better, your edges are smaller. Thus, your risk to reward ratio is smaller, so you will have bigger losing streaks. You will not have as many long winninng streaks, either.

[Tosh]

That much goes without saying, the way you said it before sounded like you were saying something different though. Might have just been my interpretation I guess.