Normal Frequency of Losing

[Dwayne]

I play 6-12 and 10-20 casino Texas Hold'em ten six-hour sessions per month. Most of my opponents are typical uniformed card room regulars. On any given night there at most three opponents that I respect as good informed Hold'em players. For the past eighteen months the frequency rate of a losing session has been one in three. These losing sessions have been generally uneventful with few bad beats. Typically it is six boring hours of mostly folding bad cards before the flop. When I do get good starting cards the flop seems to miss me more than it should during that session. When I call a bet to fill a straight or flush draw I miss. When I fold a straight or flush draw because of poor pot odds, the card that would made me the winning hand appears on the river. The good cards seem to skipping over my seat.

I realize that in one session not enough cards are dealt to display the true laws of probability. I don't ask for deck changes or lucky seats. I take a 15-min break every two hours to restore my patience. I continue to play because the next hand is independent of all the other previous hands, the game is good, I am making good decisions and I am not on tilt. The other players can be beat and will pay me off if I could just make a hand. My losses are no more than 1 ½ to 2 times my original bye-in and I consoled by reminding myself that I made good decisions. If I played those same cards the way most regulars play I would have lost three times that amount. Then the next two or three sessions I get the same amount of good and bad hands as everyone else and I grind out a modest win of 1 to 2 times my bye-in. This frequency of losing is wrecking my average hourly rate.

My question is this: What frequency of such a described losing session should a good player expect as normal? Has this happened to you? What did you do about it? Can anything be done about it? Am I playing too long in such a losing session?

[Copernicus]

Break down your "sessions" into hours so that you can track an hourly standard deviation. Youll need too many "sessions" to arrive at a session-based standard deviation.

[Dwayne]

What value of standard deviation indicates good poker play? Can standard deviation or any other analysis tell the difference between bad play and a short term run of bad cards(also known as bad luck)?

[Al Schoonmaker]

One in three is not bad at all. It's not great, but it is FAR better than most people do. You must remember that the rake at these stakes is so large that only about 10% of all players win over the long term.
I agree with the importance of computing your standard deviation, but there is no need to do it yourself. Just keep your records on Statking or CPA.
Regards,
Al

[J.A.Sucker]

The frequency of your losses is dependent on three things:

1. Your hourly EV (expectation, a function of your ability vs. your opponents)
2. Your hourly Std Deviation (swings, a function of the aggressiveness of your games)
3. How long your session are.

Put another way, suppose you play sessions that are 1 hand long. Your skill enters very little into this single outcome, and you're EV matters little; it's all std. deviation that determines if you are a winner or a loser. Conversely, if you were a guy who played a session that went on forever, if you are a winning player, regardless of your std deviation vs. EV relationship, you'll always be a winner (provided that you have an adequate bankroll to never go broke). This is how all good gambling games work. In the short-run, your results are determined by standard deviation (luck) and in the long run, the cream rises to the top (to the casinos in table games, and good players in poker).

Now, for your question, you can calculate what your frequency should be with a very high precision in the following manner:

1. Your expected earn for a session is (Hourly rate)*(session length); suppose you're a 20/hr winner (excellent 10-20 player) and you play the 6 hour session you mentioned. You would expect to win 120 a session, on average.

2. Your session std deviation scales a little differently due to the nature of std deviations (see GTAOT or any decent stats book for more info), and it goes as the (Std Dev)*(# hours)^0.5; for a "typical game" playing a winning style, you will likely have a std deviation of about 10BB/hr at the midlimits (higher if you have aggressive opponents, maniacs included), so about 200/hr for the 10/20 example. Your session std dev is thus 200*(6)^0.5 = 200*2.45 = 490 bucks.

So, you would expect to be up 120, but this has a spread around it, due to short-term luck, which is significant in poker. In fact, to lose, you only need to be down (120/490)= 0.24 std deviations, something that is named the Z-score value (which you can look up on the internet). A Z of 0.24 occurs with P = 0.095. So you will win or break even with a P = 0.5 + 0.095 = 0.6. 60% of the time, so your experience is exactly what you would expect.

The only caveat is that you should realize that average earns take a long time to converge due to the short-term luck factore, so your EV value may be waaaay off, since it can be dominated by "running good" for (or bad) awhile. Std deviations converge to the correct values very quickly, however. All these statistics count on the quality of games remaining the same, which is not actually true, but is usually close enough that you just have to deal with it.

I know that this doesn't seem very psychological in nature, but you need to realize that even for an outstanding player, they will lose quite often, and that's what makes poker a great game for gambling large stakes of money on, day in and day out. The live ones actually think that they can win, and they do, sometimes.

This is just my opinion, but I'm Just Another Sucker.

[Dwayne]

Thanks for each of your replies. I will work up the numbers and see where they fall. All I can really do is continuously try to improve my game. I true unbiased measure of performance will be helpful.

The only other thing I can do is after three or four hours of boring unplayable poker hands is just quit for the day. I know it will not help the numbers becaouse the next hour you play is exactly that, the next hour you play. But it may help me feel better and have a better frame of mind going into the next session.

[Dwayne]

[CMangano]

"3. How long your session are."

So would it then make sense that if someone played online only, and played 2 hour sessions only, they could expect to have more losing sessions than someone who played 8 hour sessions since there will be more short term luck involved?

[Nottom]

Exactly, the longer you play the more your hourly rate can begin to dominate your standard deviation.

Another way to look at it it an 8 hour session is just 4 2-hour sessions. The 2-hour player might book 2 winning and 2 losing sessions and be up a bit after all 4, while the 8-hour player just books one win for the same play.

[slider77]

What would be interesting would be to see what the distribution of win rate per hour looks like. I don't know if it would look normal (as in bell shaped). Anybody plotted it out?

[David Steele]

It is not required to break down a session into hourly results, you can estimate your hourly SD given a bunch of sessions with length in hours. Mason has a estimation formula in his books.

D.

[tiger1]

I've had runs where I have 10 or more winning sessions (some are small or break even wins, some are nice size wins) in a row and then experience the "running bad" syndrome where I just get crummy cards or have a run of bad luck. Then I give back all my win $. It has wrecked my hourly rate. I try to limit my loss, or leave quickly if the cards seem to be bad.

The first thing I notice when I sit down at a table is if the good players are winning and the fish are losing. Usually, if the poorly skilled players are winning (getting lucky, sucking out) or screwing up the game somehow I exit quickly.

I try to play my best at all times and be patient. If I'm not feeling patient that day or the cards are bad and I'm not catching I find it best to just leave. Set a win and loss limit for yourself.

For example if you win 1 out of 3 times you should never lose more than you can win in a single session.

[Dwayne]

Tiger1,
How often does you long span of getting crummy cards occure and how long does this span last? My occurences of this are about one in three and crummy cards seem to just keep coming. Only rarly have I been able to 'turn it around' during such a session.

I think you advice of leaving a bad game after a certain period of time and not losing more than you can win on any given session is good. I will remember that.

[Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually, if the poorly skilled players are winning (getting lucky, sucking out) or screwing up the game somehow I exit quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not me. I want to play in a game where the poor players have lots of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm not feeling patient that day or the cards are bad and I'm not catching I find it best to just leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're not feeling patient then leaving is a good thing. When you're not catching cards, how do you know you aren't about to start catching cards?

[ QUOTE ]
Set a win and loss limit for yourself

[/ QUOTE ]
Loss limits may have some value in some situations, but setting a limit on how much you will win is silly except in home game situations where you want to insure being invited back.

[tiger1]

Sometimes it can last up to 3 or more sessions and is very frustrating. At one point in my poker career I had an amazing run of 30 winning sessions in a row. I would stay there until I won no matter how long it took. It seemed to work for a while and I was winning a ton of money, but then it went bad. And boy did it go bad. I ended up losing about $4K one day before I gave up and went home.

Then, I would go on another run of about 10 winning session to recover and lose all my winnings again in 1 or 2 horrendous sessions. Very frustrating!

It taught me a lesson to limit my losses. It just wasn't healthy to be sitting at the poker table so long not playing my best. All good things must come to an end and so did my long win streaks.

I used to be able to "turn it around" or all of a sudden the cards would go my way. But, sometimes it just doesn't turn around even if you are playing superb poker. No matter what you do you just can't win.

I don't know if you want to limit your win. But for myself I don't like giving anything back. I like limiting my losses if it seems like you hardly ever turn it around once you get stuck.

Changing tables is also good if this is happening. Then no one knows how you are running that day and they won't come after you. Never let people know how you are running at the table. Never complain or throw cards. It's a cue to attack and make plays on you that they may not do otherwise.

I've also been playing internet poker and it is really nice to be able to quickly exit the games I am losing at and find a new one.

The reason I like it if the "good" players are winning at the table and the fish are losing is the game is much more under control. The fish are much more passive and the game is less like bingo. I hate the bingo games, that is my pet peeve. But, I also play best when the skilled players have control over the game.

I hope this helps!

[BogeyWan]

I haven't been playing that long but I seem to run into the same pattern you are experiencing. I get the big sessions, greed sets in and all of a sudden my sole purpose is to rake chips and everything goes to hell. Now I realize that the purpose for the "professional" player is to leave with a profit. That's why you play poker is because of the positive expectation. However..... I've found that I will almost always play better when I sit down to play with the mindset that this is going to be a mental and physical exercise which I enjoy, rather than "I need to make money." The goal is to play "good" poker all the time, and you may tell yourself that you are, but you WILL play differently depending on your mindset. I played golf for many years, (probably the single most frustrating endeavor aside from poker). Most all my best rounds of golf came when I quit trying to "score" and just enjoyed the round and let my swing just happen. Don't worry about the stack, make outplaying and outguessing your opponents your goal and the chips will come.
Just wondering... especially on-line... have you ever just been on a good run, good plays, good cards then look down and be a little surprised how far up you are? You know, the "Zone". You completely ignore your stack, and you are just so involved in the game, you can almost "feel" what everyone has and what's coming off the deck. It's happened a couple of times to me. I was wondering if anyone else experiences this on a regular basis?

[RydenStoompala]

Thankfully I adopted a good ("book learned") philosophy on losing sessions early in my learning curve. Since one session is just another chapter is a never-ending book, I use the bad ones as good learning experiences. Sometimes, like last night, I couldn't win if the dealer helped me and all cards were face up. Developing skills at reading players, playing good hole cards and being agressive has kicked up the bankroll fluctuations but according to my records, has made me a borderline good player. How many bad sessions could be strung together? An infinite number if I do not play well and keep picking very tough games to enter. What's the norm? One really bad session for every one really incredible session (can't lose). Most sessions Are what they should be, pleasant grinds with a solid win. What I have found helps is taking a little more time off after a beating, which is not really possible if you're in Vegas for three days to play poker. Keep the log book current.

One other thing. I found the games at 10-20 and 20-40 almost unrelated to the low limit stuff. It's easy to be dominant and sometimes a huge winner at low limits. It's also possible to pick up bad habits, grind for hours against calling stations who thump you with hold cards like 2-7 off suit, and generally get into a funk. The mid limits, for me, have been much more rewarding and easier to analyze.