Is $850 downswing at Party 10+1's "normal variance"? [Archive]

10-09-2005, 10:39 PM

Thanks for such kind responses. Anyway, I posted this because I really thought it was more than variance, but I don't know the numbers for SNG's, and he wouldn't believe me if I told him it was more than bad luck anyway. I wanted to hear it from the people who know what they are talking about. I'm sorry for my ignorance but you guys didn't have to be such jackasses in your responses.

So then, what would be considered the maximum downswing for a winning player at these limits? I'd imagine 30 buy-ins tops (probably more like 15-20)? My own opinion of what happened in order to lose 80 buy-ins (some cash and 20 SNG's also, maybe $100 worth at max), was a bad run of maybe 10 buy-ins, followed by tilt and excessively tight play. His playstyle is on the tighter side anyway, and he never mixes it up. I also believe he is a winning player at these limits, and does profit in them, mainly by waiting out the fish and playing big hands fast all the while getting called down by a donk.

He has made a couple thousand from online poker (made back everything from his downswing and then some). Of course, this is over many many thousands of hands/SNG's, so it leads me to believe that he is a marginally winning player, who was tilting for most of his downswing.

10-09-2005, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So then, what would be considered the maximum downswing for a winning player at these limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

$840

applejuicekid

10-09-2005, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for such kind responses. Anyway, I posted this because I really thought it was more than variance, but I don't know the numbers for SNG's, and he wouldn't believe me if I told him it was more than bad luck anyway. I wanted to hear it from the people who know what they are talking about. I'm sorry for my ignorance but you guys didn't have to be such jackasses in your responses.

So then, what would be considered the maximum downswing for a winning player at these limits? I'd imagine 30 buy-ins tops (probably more like 15-20)? My own opinion of what happened in order to lose 80 buy-ins (some cash and 20 SNG's also, maybe $100 worth at max), was a bad run of maybe 10 buy-ins, followed by tilt and excessively tight play. His playstyle is on the tighter side anyway, and he never mixes it up. I also believe he is a winning player at these limits, and does profit in them, mainly by waiting out the fish and playing big hands fast all the while getting called down by a donk.

He has made a couple thousand from online poker (made back everything from his downswing and then some). Of course, this is over many many thousands of hands/SNG's, so it leads me to believe that he is a marginally winning player, who was tilting for most of his downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no max buy-in downswing possible. The best player ever could lose every game he plays from here on out.

10-09-2005, 10:44 PM

Well, let me rephrase then. What is the average maximum downswing people deal with around here?

applejuicekid

10-09-2005, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let me rephrase then. What is the average maximum downswing people deal with around here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but I think I see something like 30 to 50 thrown around a lot.

microbet

10-09-2005, 10:49 PM

Most players would probably have busted out before they hit -$850 in the $11s. So you need to go to the poker forum for people who don't play poker anymore.

Don't get mad, I'm just making a joke.

10-09-2005, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this is over many many thousands of hands/SNG's,

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, hold on there cowboy, a couple thousand hands is much different from a couple thousand STTs. If your friend has a 80 buyin drop, he needs to do some homework. He probably isn't a winner.

Before I found this site I made like $800 at 3/6 in playing 1 table at a time. I proceeded to go out and tell everyone how I was a winning player. And then lost it all in the next two weeks.

Your friend could very well be in the same boat.

10-09-2005, 11:00 PM

He's not a losing player (because of the donks). He just gives up way too much especially as the blinds get higher, IMO.

runner4life7

10-09-2005, 11:00 PM

If you care about your friend tell him to stop playing before he learns...A LOT...I almost killed myself after a 34 buy in downswing at the 30s. One think you must learn is a lot of people lie about how much they make/lose in poker. Your "winning" friend is no more than another party fish. Hate to have to break the news to you.

runner4life7

10-09-2005, 11:01 PM

he is a losing player. you must accept this. if he doesnt change the way he plays he will continue to be a losing player.

Pudge714

10-09-2005, 11:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he is a losing player. you must accept this. if he doesnt change the way he plays he will continue to be a losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe he has beaten Ace_in_the_hole for the most unlucky person in the history of the world.

Mr_J

10-09-2005, 11:21 PM

Don't listen to these guys.

"so it leads me to believe that he is a marginally winning player, who was tilting for most of his downswing. "

This seems the most likely to me.

10-09-2005, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't listen to these guys.

"so it leads me to believe that he is a marginally winning player, who was tilting for most of his downswing. "

This seems the most likely to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

A normally marginally winning player who tilts for most of an 80 buyin downswing is most likely a losing player overall.

runner4life7

10-09-2005, 11:35 PM

Mr_J while I do agree, i must say anyone who tilts for 80+ buy ins which is plenty more games either
A) does not have the mentality for winning poker and therefore became a losing player
B) always was a losing player got lucky and now the truth is showing

But in any case at this point in time he is a losing player and without changing some things will still be.

Mr_J

10-09-2005, 11:37 PM

"A normally marginally winning player who tilts for most of an 80 buyin downswing is most likely a losing player overall."

He is still ahead. It's unlikely to be mostly tilt. His friend said that before he was informed that you can lose >30 buyins off bad luck alone.

Bigdaddydvo

10-09-2005, 11:46 PM

What's his screen name?

10-10-2005, 12:01 AM

I guess he is the luckiest person alive then as variance has been in his favor for so long. No, he hasn't lied about his wins, as we both began playing online at about the same time and seen each other's bankrolls and kept one another informed of our current situation. The cold, hard facts are that he had make ~2k over the course of 8 months or so, grinding out a $75 deposit on Party at the 5+1's and then 10+1's, before hitting his biggest downswing. He didn't bust because both of us a very conservative in terms of bankroll management. Those are the facts; take them as you will.

And like I said before, the reason I posted this is because I felt he had attributed too much of his losses to plain bad luck rather than bad play and I wanted to justify my point of view. It seems I have more than accomplished that. But I still cannot believe he is an overall losing player at the 10s, even though his play may not be optimal. In later stages, his idea of preflop hand selection doesn't widen enough. He gives up too much by not gambling when the increased blinds force you to. Even so, he has a good head on his shoulders and doesn't really make the big mistakes that separate the winners from the losers.

splashpot

10-10-2005, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He's not a losing player (because of the donks). He just gives up way too much especially as the blinds get higher, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know he's not a losing player? Everyone is super confident in his own game. Everyone says he is a winning player.

I'm not saying he's not, I'm just saying that if I were a marginally winning player with a total profit of a few thousand dollars, then had a 80 buyin downswing, I would seriously be doubting my ability. I just don't see how you can be so confident of his winningness.

IMO being able to step back, reflect, and consider the fact that you could be a losing player is the one quality that seperates good players from bad ones.

splashpot

10-10-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The cold, hard facts are that he had make ~2k over the course of 8 months

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not very much at all. If this is your evidence that he's winning, you don't have a very strong case.

pooh74

10-10-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess he is the luckiest person alive then as variance has been in his favor for so long. No, he hasn't lied about his wins, as we both began playing online at about the same time and seen each other's bankrolls and kept one another informed of our current situation. The cold, hard facts are that he had make ~2k over the course of 8 months or so, grinding out a $75 deposit on Party at the 5+1's and then 10+1's, before hitting his biggest downswing. He didn't bust because both of us a very conservative in terms of bankroll management. Those are the facts; take them as you will.

And like I said before, the reason I posted this is because I felt he had attributed too much of his losses to plain bad luck rather than bad play and I wanted to justify my point of view. It seems I have more than accomplished that. But I still cannot believe he is an overall losing player at the 10s, even though his play may not be optimal. In later stages, his idea of preflop hand selection doesn't widen enough. He gives up too much by not gambling when the increased blinds force you to. Even so, he has a good head on his shoulders and doesn't really make the big mistakes that separate the winners from the losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being an "overall" losing or winning player is a very loose term...it doesnt mean much, unless you define it.

If he is up, then I guess he is a winning player at the moment. But if I had to guess, any player who drops 84BIs at the 11s cannot be a winning player. Maybe he has plugged some leaks, or, like you said, had a terrible case of tilt, but, at that level being down 84 is almost unheard of.

Manque

10-10-2005, 12:34 AM

I doubt it's normal. When I started playing SnG's I went from $700 to $180 playing the $11's. I blamed everything except the fact that I was a bad player.

ace_in_the_hole

10-10-2005, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he is a losing player. you must accept this. if he doesnt change the way he plays he will continue to be a losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe he has beaten Ace_in_the_hole for the most unlucky person in the history of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I resent that. It is pretty common knowledge that I am the most unlucky person in the UNIVERSE. Today I got 4 4ths in a row, then smashed my head into mirror hanging under a ladder while chasing my black cat. Holler.

Out.

Cactus Jack

10-10-2005, 07:44 AM

[quote
How do you know he's not a losing player? Everyone is super confident in his own game. Everyone says he is a winning player.

I'm not saying he's not, I'm just saying that if I were a marginally winning player with a total profit of a few thousand dollars, then had a 80 buyin downswing, I would seriously be doubting my ability. I just don't see how you can be so confident of his winningness.

IMO being able to step back, reflect, and consider the fact that you could be a losing player is the one quality that seperates good players from bad ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this again. Reread this again. And again.

No winning player is going to lose 85 buyins. None. Period. Uh uh.

A winning player is going to stop at a point like 30 and go, WFT IS GOING ON HERE??? He's going to step down off the railing of a very high bridge and re-evaluate his situation. He won't stop looking until he finds out WHY.

The very definition of a degenerate gambler--AKA LOSER--is not knowing when to quit. They desparetely try to win back the money they've lost.

A winning player is an improving player and improving players ultimately win. There are more ways to lose than win, many more. And even more excuses.

Your friend has some problem that needs to fixed, tout suite. And if he's really your friend, you'll stop helping him make excuses for why he sucks. Right now, he sucks. If he doesn't find out why, he's going to keep sucking.

CJ

tigerite

10-10-2005, 07:51 AM

I have to agree with this, I lost around 30-35 at the $33s and dragged it all the way back, though it took about a month. I would say 40 is about the limit, above that you really have to be looking at your game, and at the $10s probably less than that.

Mr_J

10-10-2005, 08:20 AM

"I would say 40 is about the limit"

Lol.

tigerite

10-10-2005, 08:25 AM

40 buyins, before you should be looking at your game and checking there's no leaks. Not 40 buyins and instantly you're a losing player, I never said that.

lorinda

10-10-2005, 08:32 AM

It is normal if you are 78-tabling and a meteroite hits your house. Otherwise there's a problem.

Lori

gumpzilla

10-10-2005, 08:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

This is not very much at all. If this is your evidence that he's winning, you don't have a very strong case.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a pretty substantial amount if you are playing a relatively small number of SNGs a day and aren't moving up from 10+1 ever. If you take a 10% ROI and assume he started 10+1 with 30 buyins, for example, it's going to take 1700 SNGs to get to ~200 buyins if you're playing strictly at 10+1. So I think (assuming everything else is true, which is a fairly substantial if) that it's a good amount of evidence in support of him being a winning player.

On the other hand, an ~80 buyin downswing at the 11s is pretty strong evidence that he's not. My guess as to what is happening is that when he was getting started, he played a pretty tight, unimaginative game and between that and running good, did quite well for a few months. Then he started getting cocky and playing a more wide open game where he tried to win every pot and is now blowing a fair amount of money.

Cactus Jack

10-10-2005, 08:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is normal if you are 78-tabling and a meteroite hits your house. Otherwise there's a problem.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are, that's funny.

nh

CJ

Uppercut

10-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Bad luck is one thing, but losing 80 buy-ins on the Party $11s, which are full of fish, has to be almost impossible for a "winning" player to do.

Cactus Jack

10-10-2005, 08:57 AM

[quote
My guess as to what is happening is that when he was getting started, he played a pretty tight, unimaginative game and between that and running good, did quite well for a few months. Then he started getting cocky and playing a more wide open game where he tried to win every pot and is now blowing a fair amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was exactly what I was guessing, but didn't say. I didn't say because some folks need to find their own way out of the woods so they don't get lost again. This guy is so deep, perhaps your way was better. We call it the "Bulletproof Syndrome." Pernicious disease that affects "winning players."

CJ

Deuce2High

10-10-2005, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just wondering. My friend recently lost this much, and he had been an apparent winning player before. This downswing lasted several months also (playing a few SNG's/day). It also includes some two-table tournaments from what I understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marry me?

10-10-2005, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your friend has some problem that needs to fixed, tout suite. And if he's really your friend, you'll stop helping him make excuses for why he sucks. Right now, he sucks. If he doesn't find out why, he's going to keep sucking.

[/ QUOTE ]That's exactly whatthe OP is trying to do. His friend has attributed the downswing to luck. OP thinks that is unlikely and wants support of the idea that the downswing was skill related.

The OP is running into some problems because he insists his friend is a winning player despite the downswing. He'd be much better off to say his friend has the potential or ability to be a winning player.

Mr_J

10-10-2005, 10:00 AM

"40 buyins, before you should be looking at your game and checking there's no leaks."

Fair enough, although I'd make it look at your game whenever you doubt your ability.

I thought you were saying a winning player won't lose more than 40 buyins /images/graemlins/wink.gif

schwza

10-10-2005, 10:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bad luck is one thing, but losing 80 buy-ins on the Party $11s, which are full of fish, has to be almost impossible for a "winning" player to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are haters. the question is not whether the friend is a 20% ROI player. if that were the question, it'd be a pretty obvious no. the question is whether he could be a winning player, such as .01% ROI. i don't have any fancy ROI simulator, but i'm guessing it's pretty possible to have a huge downswing if you're essentially breakeven.

if the guy is up overall, i'd say he's a winning player (so far). i don't care if he went up 200 BI's and down 85 or if he went up 115 straight. he's still a winning player.

if he is a losing player as so many people are convinced he is, it's pretty unlikely that he would have amassed 2k playing $11's, just like it's admittedly kind of unlikely that he'd drop 85 BI's if he's a winning player. but i don't see why the first is automatically considered more likely than the second.

don't get me wrong - the dude should probably chill for a bit and read the forums and then go back.

Mr_J

10-10-2005, 10:47 AM

Or you could just play multiple 'practical jokes' on raptor (hint: power).

housenuts

10-10-2005, 12:07 PM

am i the only one that thinks your friend is actually you? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

10-10-2005, 07:08 PM

Not trying to bring this thread back from the grave but I had just a couple more points. Firstly, it's not me although I know many of you would like to believe it, hehe. I'd have gotten really worried around 10-15 buy-ins. The thing about my friend, let's call him Joe, is that during this downswing, he would keep telling me, "the same [censored] keeps happening, today I had AQ lose to A7 all-in, KK to 66, etc. etc." He also liked to complain a lot what I tend to think of as little more than coinflips; i.e. A6os vs. QT...

My thoughts were that he was doing something wrong to be so shortstacked all the time and get into these all-in situations in the first place. I'd ask him if he was doing anything differently from before, because it sure as hell seemed that way. In his stubborness, Joe would continue to refuse it was his problem, but bad luck. It was surely a bit of both.

I am still intrigued by this downswing because of the fact that I think he is a winning player (maybe with a very very low ROI, but still in the +). I know his playstyle and have played many home games with him and seen him play online. I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't truely believe it. He has since made back all of his losses and then some, playing SNG's, MTT's, and cash up to $1/2 6-max. Anyway, I shouldn't keep dragging on as from these responses it seems the problem has been narrowed down to one of two things: (A) Joe is a losing player whom has been very fortunate to have had a great run, or (B) tilt and bad play turned a marginally winning player into a big loser for a several month span.

pokerlaw

10-10-2005, 07:12 PM

Cactus Jack

10-10-2005, 07:47 PM

Or, his stubborness will be his downfall.

To learn, you must make mistakes. You learn from these. If you don't make mistakes, you cannot learn from them. If you don't admit to making mistakes, it's the same as not making them, and no learning means no improvement. Make these same mistakes over and over, you'll be down 85 buy ins.

QED.

The Yugoslavian

10-10-2005, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is normal if you are 78-tabling and a meteroite hits your house. Otherwise there's a problem.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this happened to you too? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

And here I thought that I was the only one, /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

Yugoslav

playtitleist

10-10-2005, 08:16 PM

If my friend was down 80 buy-ins or 40 or 30 or 20 or none or up 1000 I would tell him to come to 2+2. Friend should be reading this forum, asking about hands, posting HHs, replying to posts, getting flamed, fixing his game. Even if his game doesn't need to be fixed.

That's Friend's best play. Whether it's variance or not is completely irrelevent.