Post-Skins Party 30-60

[Klepton]

maybe it's just me, but i feel like this game has gotten a lot harder. it may just be that i'm in the middle of a downswing, but as i'm multi-tabling i'm always at 3 or 4 tables with only one live player, the second one sometimes being me.

please respond with any of your obsevations and experiences dealing with the new party 30-60

[mc1023]

I had a similar thought too, been 4-6 tabling and I would only be on 1-2 tables with an avg vpip of 23+

and thats with table selection.

but then yesterday i had 5 tables with avg vpip of 28+ so hard to say

it used to be a lot better thats for sure.

[sthief09]

the SH games can be delicious

maybe you were running good and now you are running bad? it's human nature to associate a good run with good luck. if you're running fine then I apologize for suggesting this

[Klepton]

[ QUOTE ]
the SH games can be delicious

maybe you were running good and now you are running bad? it's human nature to associate a good run with good luck. if you're running fine then I apologize for suggesting this

[/ QUOTE ]

if my downswing continues i will probably post my entire 30-60 stats to prove or deny your claim, but in truth i just wanted to see if other people had these same obsevations.

[Peter_rus]

Maybe BK scares some higher level regs to come back to 30/60 with his recent post and after party added ability to play 10 tables - some people treat playing lesser numbers as a shame? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mmcd]

I've played in some really donked out games over the last couple of weeks. If anything, I'd say the games are better.
Yesterday, I ran into BigBab and GjinGjini at one of my tables. Glad to see those two are back in action.

[mc1023]

bigbab is running sickly lately.... i cant figure out why that guy hates money so much.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
bigbab is running sickly lately.... i cant figure out why that guy hates money so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

From yesterday: 98 hands, 40/23, +2537

[mc1023]

yes my figures show something similar too

he was getting hands though yesterday, not the usual round of bullshit.

[SrGuapo]

FWIW, I agree. I also can't tell if it is me or the games, but I think it is beyond coincidental I'd go on a downswing right when all this started.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
bigbab is running sickly lately.... i cant figure out why that guy hates money so much.

[/ QUOTE ]


he is my #1 donator. thanks big babs /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MNpoker]

OK I play 15/30 but I also am on the worst downswing I've seen since the switch.

- Almost 200 BB in the las tweek.

This is after winning 400 Big bets last month

Can these numbers even be possible? (This is all hands this year)

Empire:
45,319 hands +$42,912
Party Poker
5,071 hands -$8,775

WOW

[mc1023]

[ QUOTE ]
Can these numbers even be possible? (This is all hands this year)

Empire:
45,319 hands +$42,912
Party Poker
5,071 hands -$8,775

WOW

[/ QUOTE ]
um losing 9k over 5000 hands is really meaningless..

its all thanks to our good friend called variance

[elmo]

I had a big downswing when party cut back on the 30/60 tables. I still am not certain if I was beating that new game. I'd wait for 50k hands before making any determination.

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Can these numbers even be possible? (This is all hands this year)

Empire:
45,319 hands +$42,912
Party Poker
5,071 hands -$8,775

WOW

[/ QUOTE ]
um losing 9k over 5000 hands is really meaningless..

its all thanks to our good friend called variance

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point is it meaningfull then?

If that's meaningless how can you say 'anyone' in a good or bad player. Especially in the pre-internet days. Any measurement for your variance?

I show I'm a 2.9 BB / 100 with a Variance of 3.54 per hand. (Based on sound statistics)

OK I get 3.28% chance of this. Impossible to run this bad? No. Coincidental that it happened at the EXACT same time Party got rid of skins? I don't know.
Meaningless - I don't think so.

[elmo]

3.28% is alot when you are repeating an action over and over

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I show I'm a 2.9 BB / 100 with a Variance of 3.54 per hand. (Based on sound statistics)

OK I get 3.28% chance of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only have 45k hands to determine you are a 2.9/100 player? I would guess you were running good, and actually win less. The chances of your downswing will probably later prove to have been considerably higher.

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I show I'm a 2.9 BB / 100 with a Variance of 3.54 per hand. (Based on sound statistics)

OK I get 3.28% chance of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only have 45k hands to determine you are a 2.9/100 player? I would guess you were running good, and actually win less. The chances of your downswing will probably later prove to have been considerably higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume that?

I see alot of people here talk about stats. Just curious what the backup is for that?
(i.e. any statistical reasoning or just 'gut' feeling)

I should add I can tell when AA is getting cracked by runner runner over and over again that I am running bad.

[tonysoldier]

Here's a little worthless anecdotal evidence, but it should demonstrate a point.

First 50K+ hands at 20/40 and 30/60, 3.7bb/100. Next 17K hands -1.5bb/100.

VARIANCE, never underestimate, never.

[Leaky Eye]

Why would I assume which part?

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would I assume which part?

[/ QUOTE ]

You only have 45k hands to determine you are a 2.9/100 player? I would guess you were running good, and actually win less. The chances of your downswing will probably later prove to have been considerably higher. <---- This one

I will admit when I start to run bad I seem to stay to long, need to figure out how to work on this.

But as I was typing this AJ just lost to AT and AK lost to AQ.
At least I won $800 at Party Poker Blackjack /images/graemlins/smile.gif

People bring up expected values and variance. Curious how you are calculating them.

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a little worthless anecdotal evidence, but it should demonstrate a point.

First 50K+ hands at 20/40 and 30/60, 3.7bb/100. Next 17K hands -1.5bb/100.

VARIANCE, never underestimate, never.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'll get out of this thread after this post .....

But I have to ask. Did anything else change? You felt you played the same way? The games were the same / site / level / short handed v full table / etc.

How many were at 20 / 40 v 30 / 60?
My 15 / 30 numbers are 2x as high as my 30/60 ones.

Are you extremely agressive or play alot of short handed? This will make your variance higher.

It is measurable.

P.S. Sorry about the run .. that sucks. (But the 6 figures prior to that was nice)

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
People bring up expected values and variance

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected values? huh? I don't understand what this has to do with the subthread involving me.

45k is not statistically significant. You seem quite inexperienced, which is the basis for my conjecture that your win rate is inflated. If your win rate were actually less that would make the chances of your downswing greater, by definition. Any "statistical reasoning" you would require should be self evident.

[ QUOTE ]
But as I was typing this AJ just lost to AT and AK lost to AQ.
At least I won $800 at Party Poker Blackjack

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm ya.

[NLSoldier]

I thougth the short 30s were amazing immediatly following the split. but then i proceeded to go on the worst downswing of my life /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[mplspoker]

losing $9,000 on 15 game is not normal.. either you suck are are runnning very very bad.

[MaxPower]

MNPoker,

Will all due respect because I am trying to be nice to a new poster, the purpose of this particular forum is not to spoon feed you the answers to these questions. We know these things from studying theory and from practical experience.

If you want to learn more about variance try the probability forum or read Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. For Expected Value see the Theory of Poker by Sklansky or Small Stakes Holdem by Ed Miller.

If you have already read these, then I apologize and suggest that you review them.

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
MNPoker,

Will all due respect because I am trying to be nice to a new poster, the purpose of this particular forum is not to spoon feed you the answers to these questions. We know these things from studying theory and from practical experience.

If you want to learn more about variance try the probability forum or read Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. For Expected Value see the Theory of Poker by Sklansky or Small Stakes Holdem by Ed Miller.

If you have already read these, then I apologize and suggest that you review them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand variance. I am an Actuary, I think I know a little something about numbers.

I would suggest that when people go from great runs to bad ones it's not due to variance all the time (though sometimes it is).

It's due to shifting parameters.
Basically what this means is the game has somehow changed and the first 10K hands are not homogeneous to the last 10K hands. There can be many reasons for this:
1) The games changed - which is the hypothesis here
2) A leak has manifested itself into the players game
3) Some other reason is making it so game #1 and game # 52,000 are not homogeneous.

I would suggest those who don't understand the theory of Shifting Parameters read Howard Mahlers Paper:
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed90/90225.pdf
An example of Credibility and Shifting Risk Parameters.

What Mahler does is look at Baseball teams and compares how accurately you can predict their winning percentage from one season to the next.

Can you look at a teams record last year and predict if they will be good / bad this year? I'll say yes to an extent and this is a good start.

Could you look at team records from 10 years ago and predict how they will be this year? No, this information is virtually worthless.

So while a team has played 1,620 games in the last 10 years using all 1,620 game to predict their expected winning percentage this year is not as credible as using their last say 300 games (2 years - rounding)

Or say someone hands you a die and you can't look at it. If you roll that die 100 time and average a 4. Then you roll it 100 more times and average a 3.
Were you unlucky the next 100 rolls, lucky the first 100? Or did the number of sides on the die change?

To bring this to poker:
If you need to play 300,000 hands to see if you are a winning player (as some here suggest). You have a major problem.
Because no way is someone who plays 300,000 hands at the exact same level of skill on hand 10 as they were at hand 290,000.
Also the games have probably changed, the players playing have changed, lots of things change. Your environment is to dynamic to make sweeping statements.

When you lose $9,000 @ 15/30 and blame 'variance' that's IMO a loser mentality. Is it possible? Of course it is.
But not trying to find the potential leak that made it MORE possible is just dumb.

mplspoker might be right, perhaps right now I suck, now I need to figure out why. Because you can't win 1,000++ Big Bets sucking. No one is that lucky variance or not.

[DcifrThs]

and i quote:

[ QUOTE ]

People bring up expected values and variance. Curious how you are calculating them.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand variance.

I am an Actuary, I think I know a little something about numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

further:

[ QUOTE ]
At least I won $800 at Party Poker Blackjack

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly you both know and understand how to use EV. playing party blackjack is a great idea.

FYI, pokertracker calculates your Variance (and reports your standard deviation) in bb/100 or bb/Hr. same with your win rate, which is used as your expectation on this forum. goto "Session" in pokertracker and click "More Detail"

if you go to the pokertracker forums or the Help file you can see the formulae it uses to calculate those figures.

Barron

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
clearly you both know and understand how to use EV. playing party blackjack is a great idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Tell that to Phil Ivey or TJ when they play craps. Or guys who makes Sports bets (without being 'experts'. We all do negative EV things.

Part of being a degerate gambler /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But if you are going to be a degenerate gambler at least your goal should be to be a +EV one. (And an occasional BJ or PaiGow tiles game won't kill me)

[MaxPower]

I agree with much of what you are saying here and I never claimed that you sucked at poker.

I have an idea which should be very informative.

Take the 45,319 hands in which you won $42,912.
Randomly select samples of 5000 hands from this group of hands and calculate your win rate.
Do this 500 times and then plot these win rates on a graph.

Here you are holding all of the factors you mention constant.

It would be interesting to see what you came up with.


Also, on a related point, if you indeed lost about 9K over 5000 hands, it does make sense to suspect that something about your play or the game has changed. However, even if that is case, it wouild be wrong to say that most of that 300BB is due to these changes. There is still variance in poker whether you like it or not. Assuming you are not on total tilt a good player just cannot make 300BBs worth of mistakes over 5000 hands.

The games are certainly different. Changing markets = changing results.
My reasons for these changes, mostly obvious. Please forgive me if this has already been discussed.

1. Turnover of player names : Multi-table skin sharks coming back to Party with different screen names. Making data less reliable, decisions tougher. The flip side to this is the player who recently changed names, It would seem that their data dependent opponents will be playing against them in a different manner using less informaion, making decisions not necessarily harder, but different.


2. Lack of recreational players from the skins, It would seem that the players that find the way back to Party are exactly the same players you would least prefer to play against. There are certainly recreational players, casino and sportbook customers from Eurobet, and other desirable opponents who are much less likely to open Party accounts. This translates into a kind of sifting of the winners back to Party and leaving the biggest losers on the skins, or elsewhere. Not completely of course.


3. Bankroll/ money shift. I would guess that many players winners and losers alike upon cashing out of skins and into Party are taking some of that money off the table. This could result in some tightening of the games as winning players come back to Party without some of their bankroll, thus playing in a tighter lesser variance style. Losers may take the change as an opportunity to take stock of the losses and play a better game of poker, kind of a new years resolution effect.

4. New players multi tabling at Party. It would seem that with the opening of 10 table play at Party there would be some players that are just starting to play more than 4 tables. It would seem to follow that these 8 table virgins would be adjusting their play to the tight side while getting accustomed to the extra tables. Add to this the sharks that are going from 8 to 10 tables, increasing the TAG multi tabler effect.

anyway, something to think about.

would like to hear any comments

[James282]

The games are fine. Any time there is any change in the games, people always say "the games are so hard now!" Then after a few months, something else changes and somebody new(you, in this case) comes forward and says "the games were soooo easy, now they are TOUGH!" The message is: don't worry about it. You'll adjust and adapt and if you were a winning player before you'll be a winning player now.
-James

[Jeffage]

The games on the skins, while not as plentiful, seem to be better than their Party counterparts. Particularly if you like short games. JMHO.

Jeff

[mmcd]

Just checked my summary tab on PT. Average VPIP is still where it was (~26) before the change.

[nykenny]

very observant and very good points

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
yes my figures show something similar too

he was getting hands though yesterday, not the usual round of bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

bigbad owns me. does that make me a worse fish?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
please respond with any of your obsevations

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You've played like 8k hands this month
2) You've started playing more than 4 tables
3) You were running hot and now you're running bad
4) 1-3 Should be so obvious I don't even know why you posted this.

[ggbman]

I have not noticed the games being more difficult. This could easily be a factor of several things:

1.) They are harder but i havent played enough
2.) Klepton is running bad or has been at unusually bad tables
3.) The 30 games seem easier as a result of me playing in some tough game

Overall i think the games could be a bit harder, but they are certainly not much so. Its more likely that you are having your once or twice a year REALLY bad run of cards and are making the inference its because of the games when it's just really variance.

[MNpoker]

I'll add #5

5) Rakeback
Players who chase bonuses and rakebacks 'could' be poorer players. And now that the skins are gone they have:
(a) Stayed there without the party interface
(b) Gone to new sites that offer rakeback
(c) Are chasing bonuses

I always found Stars to be MUCH harder games and assumed this was a big reason for that.

Also assume a 'fish' sits down with $2,000 and is going to lose it all. Just a matter of time. If $150 of the $2,000 was going to rake and now $200 is that leaves that much less for the other players.

Comments?

FYI - Someone mentioned the 26% VPIP in an earlier post. Anecdontal evidence but I had a hard time today finding a game with over 22%. And found the games to be breaking much quicker than normal for a Friday afternoon (Which generally used to be one of the optimum times to play).

Wonder if this will hurt Party as more players go to other sites to 'chase fish' or if we are just in a temporary state, and eventually the fish will come to Party.

Or possibly the games really are not harder.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I know. Tell that to Phil Ivey or TJ when they play craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps your superior understanding of game conditions and statistics will some day lead you to be as wealthy as TJ himself!

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know. Tell that to Phil Ivey or TJ when they play craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps your superior understanding of game conditions and statistics will some day lead you to be as wealthy as TJ himself!

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

Is there any point to this post other than to be a dickhead?

[Emperor]

Obviously the need for a mod is justified...

[Barry]

The games seem as good as always. Party is just punishing all of us folks with long inactive accounts who left for the skins and rakeback, and are now coming back.

[steveyz]

Game didn't seem any different right after the change. For a day or so it seemed a bit easier, but that didn't last long.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know. Tell that to Phil Ivey or TJ when they play craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps your superior understanding of game conditions and statistics will some day lead you to be as wealthy as TJ himself!

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

Is there any point to this post other than to be a dickhead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There was.