Losing Streaks

[JohnWilliam]

Just how long can a losing streak last? One of my books says the worst case streak could last 1400 hours. Is this true? Any other guesses or explanations?

[Webster]

Depends on what you call a streak - I just went through a 110 Big Bet streak in 10 hours. Not even bad beats - just never hitting and looking at my hands very few mistakes.

My worst streak is 0-79 at the moment but a large number of 0-50s

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my books says the worst case streak could last 1400 hours. Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know some players who have been on a losing streak for their entire career. Losing players will always be on a losing streak.

Personally, I think a losing streak that long is simply ludicrous.

-ropey

[pretender2k]

I have gone three weeks playing daily. The good news was I came back winning 3 times as much as I lost in the next two weeks. I'm not sure how many hands but I usually play 100 to 200 hands a day.

[RydenStoompala]

Only you know if it is really a losing streak or a number of losses strung together by the occassional wrong play. Then there's the agression or lack of agression that can hamper your ability to reverse a trend. That's when other players at thetable have you pegged as someone who is always trying to draw to the nuts and bet into you more than they would normally bet.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Just how long can a losing streak last? One of my books says the worst case streak could last 1400 hours. Is this true? Any other guesses or explanations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is closer to 1350 hours--the authors were planning to correct that in the revised edition.

[Tosh]

I think a good player would never have a losing streak that long unless he was playing in a game that was above his ability.

[gamboolman]

All I play is microlimits online and low limit in the casino. I have had several -200 BB downswings online. It can and does happen quite regulary. Of course I do not play well so this is a factor. But at the microlimits the schooling effect of the chasers from hell is real and will cause these kinds of swings. Just keep remembering that you want them to play trash as you rebuy in with more ammo! The swings like this are why I have come to like to have 400 BB's for what ever micro limit I am playing in. As far as live B&M the players at low limits seem to chase more than online in a lot of places. It is just that the pace is so slow.

[MarkD]

The answer is:

It depends on your WR (win rate) and SD (standard deviation).

Now, this is explained often on the probability forum but I'll try to do it quick.

let
M = money earned total
t = time played total

then:
M = WR*t +/- (2.58*SD*sqrt(t)) for a 95% confidence interval

and if we set the first derivative of subtraction version of this equation wrt time equal to zero we will have a minimum (trust me on this, it's a calculus thing):

0 = WR - 2.58*1/2*(SD/sqrt(t))

solving for t yields:
t = 1.6641 * (sd/wr)^2

now, we sub this back into the original equation (which I will repeat):
M = WR*t - 2.58*sd*sqrt(t)
M = 1.6641*wr*(sd/wr)^2 - 2.58*sd* sqrt(1.6641*(sd/wr)^2)

which simplifies down to:
M = -1.6641 * sd^2 / wr

So... after all that let's take a typical solid player's numbers and say he wins 1 bb / hr with a SD of 10 bb / hr then the most he can expect to be down is
M = -166.41 big bets

Sigh... after all that I realize I didn't answer your question but I'm sure the answer is in there somewhere. /images/graemlins/smile.gif And this does show you something, assuming my math is right.

[MarkD]

if we take the original equation:
M = WR*t - 2.58*sd*sqrt(t) and set this to 0 then we can solve for the time required to garuntee with a 95% certainty that a person is a winner

then:
t = 6.6564 * (sd/wr)^2

so for the fictitious winning player with SD = 10 and wr = 1 he lose for a period of:
t = 665.64 hours

if sd = 12 and wr = 1
t = 958.5216

and if we look at an online player playing multiple tables his numbers might be:
SD = 15 big bets / 100 hands
WR = 3 big bets / 100 hands
t = 166.41 * 100 hands
t = 16641
and if he gets 150 hands per hour at these 3 tables then
t = 110.94 hours.

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what you call a streak - I just went through a 110 Big Bet streak in 10 hours. Not even bad beats - just never hitting and looking at my hands very few mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, glad I'm not the only one. Mind you, I've made some mistakes and my play isn't perfect but I haven't seen much in the way of starting hands. Hopefully my 30BB win today will kick me out of it.

[Webster]

I read a book called Killer Online Poker that really turned my head. It said the wame thing that 2+2ers say BUT for some reason it hit home.

Bad beats by bad players happen to EVERYBODY - it really does. When you have a streak of poker where the most hidious players are beating you when you FINALLY get cards just remember it it REALLY does happen to everybody.

Its the law of averages. The difference between good players and bad is that the good players just shake their head and move on - the bad get angry and take it personally.

Remember that these players are not playing bad on purpose - they honestly do not know how to play. They are not TRYING to play badly. YUP - they just killed your perfect hand but would you rather have a bunch of GOOD players at your table?

[JohnWilliam]

[GuyOnTilt]

For the first 2 weeks of February, I was down over 200 BB's after 167 table hours online. I got even over the next 125 table hours. So that's 292 table hours of break even play, and if online deals ~twice as fast as B&M, then that's about 600 hours B&M of break even play. My win-rate at those table playing 3 at once like I was during that stretch is 1.46 BB/hr/table, so I was running quite cold for those "600 hours." That's my worst stretch so far, and I haven't even been playing poker for a year. I can definitely see a solid player running cold for 1400 hours.

GoT

[Webster]

Well - I hate to say it but playing 3 tables at once will really kill you in a bad streak. A person plays WAY WAY better at one table and I don't think the 1400 hour thing is accurate.

[GuyOnTilt]

Well - I hate to say it but playing 3 tables at once will really kill you in a bad streak. A person plays WAY WAY better at one table...

Agreed. My winrate for 2 tables is 1.74 BB/hr/table, which is something like 22% higher than for 3 tables. I'm not sure what my winrate is for one table at those limits, 'cause I haven't logged very many hours at all playing a sole table. But my overall hourly rate is slightly higher playing 3 tables than 2, so that's what I do.

...and I don't think the 1400 hour thing is accurate.

I don't see what that has to do with how many tables you play. It's not like my winrate playing 3 tables is low or anything...I think a lot of people underestimate how much short-term luck and variance there really is in this game. And yes, 1400 hours is pretty short-term for a full-time poker player.

GoT

[arfsananto]

Killer Online Poker is by the same guy that wrote Killer Poker, John Vorhous, right? Have you read Killer Poker, and if so, can you compare/contrast the two?
I just ordered Killer Poker, and have been wondering about the online version.
Thanks for any input.

[MarkD]

Your SD playing 3 tables is probably higher though and the time consider is proportional to the square of sd / wr so as that ratio increases the time of a losing streak could increase very fast.

I doubt you have anything to worry about though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Your SD playing 3 tables is probably higher though and the time consider is proportional to the square of sd / wr so as that ratio increases the time of a losing streak could increase very fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. On an hourly basis a person playing 3 tables will have a high hourly rate and a somewhat high (but low compared to his winrate) SD compared to a 1 table player. As a result the multitable player will be less likely to go on an extended losing streak in terms of hours simply because a 40 hour losing streak for a 3-table player would be like a 1 table player losing for 120 hours or a live player losing for 200+ hours.

Now becasue of degradation in play its possible for a 3-table player to maybe see more 10000 hand losing streaks for example, but it would take him significantly less time to work his way out of that hole because he plays more hands/hour.

Sorry for the rantyness of the response but i hop eyou get the idea.