Hermlord
06-09-2005, 04:27 PM
OK, so we all know about variance. Proven winners have 300BB downslides, 10,000 break-even streaks, happens all the time. And we all know that the lower the winrate, the bigger the variance: a 1BB/100 winner will have losing streaks fairly regularly.
And, we know that the tougher the game, the lower the winrate. For the Big Game, I have heard numbers like .25BB/100. I have no idea how right that is, but it sounds reasonable. So my question is, playing B&M with so few hands/hr, how do these top guys really have any idea that they're beating the game?!? Wouldn't it just take forever to know that?
--They've been playing for years, so they do know: some of them, yes, but Phil Ivey's relatively new, isn't he? Also, didn't they move to the current top stakes fairly recently?
--They don't care about their theoretical win-rate because of all the actual $$$$ they take home: I'm sure that helps, but I'm also sure they do care.
--They play break-even with each other and wait for fish: obviously the tourist fish is a goldmine, but I've also read specific comments about pros feeling they beat other pros (can't remember where, unfortunately).
I know this question has been raised before, but I've yet to hear a convincing answer: with the super-high variance, how do any of them really know they're winners (other than against the aforementioned fish)?
And, we know that the tougher the game, the lower the winrate. For the Big Game, I have heard numbers like .25BB/100. I have no idea how right that is, but it sounds reasonable. So my question is, playing B&M with so few hands/hr, how do these top guys really have any idea that they're beating the game?!? Wouldn't it just take forever to know that?
--They've been playing for years, so they do know: some of them, yes, but Phil Ivey's relatively new, isn't he? Also, didn't they move to the current top stakes fairly recently?
--They don't care about their theoretical win-rate because of all the actual $$$$ they take home: I'm sure that helps, but I'm also sure they do care.
--They play break-even with each other and wait for fish: obviously the tourist fish is a goldmine, but I've also read specific comments about pros feeling they beat other pros (can't remember where, unfortunately).
I know this question has been raised before, but I've yet to hear a convincing answer: with the super-high variance, how do any of them really know they're winners (other than against the aforementioned fish)?