Serious variance

[meleader2]

This may be considered probability related, however it definetly has much more to do with SSNL and even HSNL in general. After reading Irie's (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2302700&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=2#Post2303224) post I've decided that even though it dealt with SNGs as a whole, it can also be related to this section of the forum as well.

Not only is his post depressing, but I can only place myself in criteria (1) of his possible explanations for even making a profit, and i'm not even an "expert" in the field of game theory. So with this in consideration as well as sitting on 30,000 hands logged on PT in the past 1.5 months (I've played many many more) my only true conclusion is that my one year of serious playing and my profit is short lived and will fizzle out very soon if not tomorrow.

Does anyone have a massive sample like Irie does for SSNL and would be willing to share their results after not only playing ~100,000 hands but maybe even observing 1,000,000 hands?

All comments welcome.

[DMACM]

I see no reason to chaulk up all your success to this point to good luck just because you aren't an expert at game theory. One of the things that Irie's post points out is that an expert will beat fish at lower buy ins for a much higher ROI. As a small stakes player you are probably beating the game by a much greater margin than even an expert could beat a high stakes game. Even with a small sample there is probably a good statistical probability you will continue to do so.

The way I see it supply and demand dictate that higher stakes will have better players. Serious players attempt to increase their hourly rate by moving up and a player will continue to move up until he perceives he has maximized his hourly rate. This will cause a greater amount of good players at the top and this will make them beatable by a much smaller margin.

As long as you can look at the other players in the room and point out mistakes they make time and again, and you are fairly confident nobody is really taking advantage of your mistakes, (if they are that good why are they playing SSNL) then I don't think you need the 500k hands it would take to truly prove you are profiting. What really troubles me about variance is that it would take thousands of hands to know how profitable you truly are in terms of bb/100. Here is a link that someone mentioned that applies to ring games.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=1342415&fpart= &PHPSESSID=

[FlipPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
. . .What really troubles me about variance is that it would take thousands of hands to know how profitable you truly are in terms of bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I looked at my BB/100 stat. in PokerTracker. I think compares to what successful players have posted here. I also think about BB/hour (could I make more money getting minimum wage at McDonald's?) Luckily, poker is more side income/hobby for me. I really enjoy playing and learning the game.

[DMACM]

I can't help but try to compare what we make at poker to what we could make at a shitty job. Even though poker is a hobby for me and tons of fun too its still a big ego boost if you feel like your making more than somebody else does flipping burgers from the comfort of your home. P.S. I've worked lots of those shitty jobs.

[meleader2]

We're straying from the point. Let's suppose we evolve from nut peddling in the kiddie pool to this semi-LAG bluffing/semi bluffing stealing player. We do remarkably well in the pool yet when its time to make that jump and we stumble isn't that the presumed death of 90% of the players? Unlike the top 10% of the 10% these guys will give it away if they don't refine their LAG skills. Am I wrong? Partially correct?

[swolfe]

variance is a bitch, but that's why we play within our bankroll and move down if we take a big hit.

[meleader2]

absolutely but that leads back to IrieGuy's major point being:

In the long run you will not be ahead.

[sourbeaver]

I think a good WR analysis including confidence intervals and standard deviation over a hefty number of hands could give you an idea of where you stand.

The only parameter left to fix is the number of hands you require in your analysis.

[FlipPoker]

I've thought about this too. On PokerStars, there are a lot fewer 5/10 games than .10/.25 games. Is this because people can't afford it or is the 5/10 game too difficult to break into? Maybe people feel that it's too much money to risk online? Maybe it's just not as profitable? With fewer players, there will be fewer fish. I have to think that the small group of people who regularly play 10/20 NL at PokerStars are solid players for the most part. You make money on your opponent's mistakes. How often do these guys make mistakes? How long would it take to be profitable against a table full of these guys? When I realize that I'm at a table of mostly solid players, I look for another table. But what if all the tables are like that?

Well I'm still at .50/1.00 (feels like I'm starting to get out of the kiddie pool), so I don't have to worry about this for a while. I don't nut-peddle like I did at .10/.25. When my bankroll supports it and I feel like I'm ready, I'll continue to move up and track my results.

[meleader2]

ok replying to sourbeaver's post i suggested about 100k hands played by yourself and about a million hands observed altogether.

and flippoker, i think maybe people just can't afford it. 5/10 is a thou to buy into and who wants to go all in with Ax to hope to win it?? heh. but once again, with .5/1 nl and no nut peddling ur going to find urself up and down a lot without a real clear idea of where you stand (except those with PT). So when it is time to move up in accordance with your bankroll those variances will double. Who's to say it won't bust you? I'm not berating or anything, these things definetly happen. I'm just trying to bolster this idea that in the long run you won't be ahead.

[kurto]

"In the long run you will not be ahead."

Am I wrong or was Irie's post addressing specifically SNG/Tournaments?

I don't know if I agree with a lot of points made by Irie. He has some odd logic... like, some people don't post anymore who were running hot a year ago and concludes that they aren't playing anymore because they aren't winning. Of course, they might just not post here anymore.

Also... I have no problem with the idea that I might move up to $200 tables and get destroyed... but I don't think my winning at the low limit tables is just a string of good luck.

But I still think that Irie's comments and experience is really geared towards playing higher level tournys.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I wrong or was Irie's post addressing specifically SNG/Tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not wrong Walter, you're just an a-hole.

Hehe, in my first paragraph in the original post i suggested that perhaps it could be extended to SSNL. Obviously i know it isn't a string of good luck in these low limit ring games. I was trying to get people who have moved up to post their thoughts on their experiences (i'm talking like 2/4 nl or 5/10 -- i'm talking to YOU Garland!)

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run you will not be ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]
at this point, there is absolutely no way that i will lose more money than i have won. if i were to somehow lose all of my bankroll (which is ~40 buy-ins for the PP $400), then i'd stop playing, but still have made money from everything that i had cashed out.

gambling is all about bankroll and playing within it. if my bankroll were to drop a remarkable amount, i'd drop down a level or two and grind it back up.