i'm old!!! please help!!!

alright, i knew all this stuff in university. but now i'm old.. and probably a troll. nominate me for best troll if you want.

anyhow,

if i have 2 BB/hour win rate (could be per 100 hands) and 12 BB/hour standard deviation, what are the odds after 10 hours (X hours) that i am profitable??

it must be somewhat closed form, and i can work the NORMSINV and RAND() functions in microsoft pretty well. so i can do it the old labour intensive way.

but there must be a formula using the normal distribution.

thanks in advance. very much appreciated. and obviously i want to experiment with win rate, standard deviation and hours (could be per 100 hands but i won't ask about conversion)

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
alright, i knew all this stuff in university. but now i'm old.. and probably a troll. nominate me for best troll if you want.

anyhow,

if i have 2 BB/hour win rate (could be per 100 hands) and 12 BB/hour standard deviation, what are the odds after 10 hours (X hours) that i am profitable??

it must be somewhat closed form, and i can work the NORMSINV and RAND() functions in microsoft pretty well. so i can do it the old labour intensive way.

but there must be a formula using the normal distribution.

thanks in advance. very much appreciated. and obviously i want to experiment with win rate, standard deviation and hours (could be per 100 hands but i won't ask about conversion)

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming win rate = 2 bb/hr and SD = 12 bb for 1 hour:

=1 - NORMDIST(0,2*10,12*sqrt(10),true) =~ 70.1%

or

=1 - NORMSDIST(-2*10/(12*sqrt(10))) =~ 70.1%

or

=NORMSDIST(2*10/(12*sqrt(10))) =~ 70.1%

bruce, thanks, that's excellent!!!

[cwes]

Is there any evidence that winrates follow a normal distribution?

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence that winrates follow a normal distribution?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i wonder stuff like that myself, but i'm just trying to do some simple modelling.

what are you thinking? more winning sessions but the losers are generally bigger, or the opposite... not sure what i'd think....

to some extent, you can control your losses thru smart play (really have to improve your turn and river play IMO).

my last B&M session, i would have done really well but the river was a complete disaster in every way (don't get me wrong, my own stupidity/curiousity/greed being the biggest factor)

[cwes]

If this post is too long please just read the last three paragraphs!


[ QUOTE ]

yeah, i wonder stuff like that myself, but i'm just trying to do some simple modelling.


[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't done any modelling therefore my opinion is to be taken somewhat cautious.

[ QUOTE ]

what are you thinking? more winning sessions but the losers are generally bigger, or the opposite... not sure what i'd think....


[/ QUOTE ]
The characeristics of winrates IMO provide clear evidence AGAINST a normal distribution:
Obviously winning players would like to win as much as possible. However they do not exceed 3 BB/100 hands over a large sample. On the contrary it is possible to lose 10.5BB on every hand (cap every street, fold to the last reraise no matter what you have), what would result in a -1050 BB/100 hands win rate. Therefore it is much easier (higher density) to achieve bad results. (When I started playing I lost 10 BB / 100 hands, 53s looks good, doesn't it?)

Of course these are interpersonal winrates. Individual winrates could yield something completely different. I am planning on doing some analysis in February. Has it been done before (I'm lazy)?

[ QUOTE ]

to some extent, you can control your losses thru smart play (really have to improve your turn and river play IMO).


[/ QUOTE ]

At least you can try. On the other hand you can also control your losses through DUMB play (i.e. lose a lot on purpose - tilt). However you cannot control your winnings that good. I.e. you can only bet and get called when you hold the nuts, but you can raise & cap when THEY hold the nuts.

[ QUOTE ]

my last B&M session, i would have done really well but the river was a complete disaster in every way (don't get me wrong, my own stupidity/curiousity/greed being the biggest factor)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, makes me think... Just a wild guess: If every player at the table plays perfect (or the same) strategy (whatever that may be) their winrates are normally distributed with a mean of zero and the same variance for each player (assuming there is no rake).

IFF this is true (might be, right?), it also leads to the following conclusion:
If the players do not use the exact same strategy their winrates are no longer identically distributed. However they never are independently distributed. Makes sense, huh? This again is interpersonal comparison...

Now let's say I always buy in for 20BB and I never rebuy. I could win infinite BBs (assuming everyone else rebuys or gets replaced) but only lose 20BB... this is at best a normal truncated at the lower end PER SESSION.
Is this what we want to know? No, we want to know if it is normally distributed over an amount (let's say ONE) hand(s). So before I get dealt cards I assume I will win 0.02 BB on that hand... At max I can lose 12 BB on that hand but I can win 108 BB at a ten handed table (Everyone plays the hand for 4 bets on every street and my hand wins). So the observed results of winning players (0.02BB/hand) and the support [-12..108] of the distribution kinda contradict a (truncated) normal distribution, right? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

This does NOT contradict the normal assumption for perfect strategy play by each player, as perfect strategy will prohibit every player playing every street for 4 bets.

Any comments and corrections are appreciated.

cwes, i know i'm supposed to be a troll and rip you by saying your ranting was completely incoherent.

but i liked your analysis.

... and i like these philosophical/math debates.... as opposed to "how would you have played this?"-----> "it was obvious he had pocket aces, you should have folded" like, huh??

definitely the river costs me alot of $$$$$$ (1) calling raises when two players tell me i'm beat; 2) betting out with nuts and a tight image when i know a maniac could start the betting for me and i could check-raise a few people; 3) inadvertedly exposing my cards before the showdown (good one); 4) not notice the potential straight; 5) getting rivered continuously (two guys clapped when i won a hand on the river)

i get the idea i just started this thread so i could complain.

cwes,

three things i noticed

you say your losses are limited with 20 BB, but it effectively can easily limit your upside. the odds that you will be down 20 BB's at some point are very high, and then you're toast, so no winning day.

you say you could lose every hand for 10.5 BB's. that's if you play really, really badly. play every hand and calling station. probably not realistic that people are that bad or would continue that way.

there have been some good debates in here about being underfunded and lowering your risk at the expense of return i.e. you can fold instead of capping JJ or TT.... i played once with K flush draw and two other guys were raising/reraising, and i said enough, i was worried about collusion, but it turned out it was complete incompetence on all three of our parts. but i probably turned down good EV situation to protect bankroll, haven't done that often.

[cwes]

[ QUOTE ]
cwes, i know i'm supposed to be a troll and rip you by saying your ranting was completely incoherent.


[/ QUOTE ]
People often say that. Usually they are terribly wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

but i liked your analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't like the writeup of my analysis, however the ideas behind it sure might lead somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]

... and i like these philosophical/math debates....


[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing philosophical in my discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

definitely the river costs me alot of $$$$$$ (1) calling raises when two players tell me i'm beat; 2) betting out with nuts and a tight image when i know a maniac could start the betting for me and i could check-raise a few people; 3) inadvertedly exposing my cards before the showdown (good one); 4) not notice the potential straight; 5) getting rivered continuously (two guys clapped when i won a hand on the river)


[/ QUOTE ]
Nice, but who cares? Did you try reading SSH, maybe HPFAP players yet? BTW the rivers are supposed to enable you to make far better decisions on the end in Hold'em as opposed to 7CS because you can observe your opponents last card and you don't have to pay off that frequently.