How often stuck 50 BB's or 100 BB's multi-tabling????

[goodguy_1]

Just a question for you regular multi-tablers of say 3-4 tables.

How often do you find yourself down 50BB's combined from all tables? By often I mean out of every 10 sesssions you play do you get stuck this amount at one time say roughly 15%,30% or 50% of those 10 sessions? This is assuming that the you are a solid winning player with a reasonable hourly standard deviation.

I know this question can be easily estimated using prob stats but just trying to see if you guys have a feel for this just off the top of your head???

How about 100BB's -how often are you stuck that amount multi-tabling-on a session percentage basis.5%,10%ish??


hope I'm being clear.I ask because the more short I play which is now everyday.I encounter some massive swings which are quite harrowing.

Thnx Lee

[sthief09]

the only reason to have bigger downswings multi-tabling is because your winrate is lower.

if you played 100,000 hands multi-tabling adn 100,000 hands playing one table, and you somehow had the same winrate and SD, the swings would be the same.

now plot your progress on a graph. the y-axis would be net $ and the x-axis would be time. the graph for playing one table would be smoother because the time period it so long. the multi-tabling graph would just be a compressed version of the single table graph. it would appear that there are greater swings, but that's not the case.

swings in multi-table play just seem worse because your time frame is much, much smaller. instead of 60 hands an hour, you play 240. mentally, it appears that there's more variance, but that only occurs because you're playign 4 hours of poker per hour.

if you played 4 tables for 2 hours a day for a year, versus 1 table for 8 hours a day, your swings per day would be identical if you had the same winrate and SD.

I hope all that made sense. I'm tired.

[stripsqueez]

i would guess i finish a session 50-100BB's down maybe 15-20% - finishing a session 100BB's down is rare - i like the hit and run so a session for me might be only 50 hands - more commonly a session would be 400 hands - i dont think i've ever dropped 100+BB's in a 400 hand session - i have a 100+BB downswing roughly every 10 days to 2 weeks playing maybe 4,000 hands a week

i hear lots of talk about the swings in short handed - i have done just over 300BB's once and over 200BB's twice over 65,000 hands of 6 max - its nearly always 3 tables and sometimes 4 - my win rate is healthy

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[goodguy_1]

Thats what I'm looking for stripsqueez -thnx.

3 200+ BB downdrafts is proof to how volatile 6MAX results can be .In my own Limit holdem results I have rarely lost more than 150 BB's-this is at lower limits online: $2-4 and $3-6 and 150BB in B&M $10-20 and $15-30 games.I have had one 800 bigblind and one 1000 bigblind downdraft in NLHE ring games--ohh the pain hehe.Btw the volatilty and swings of the NLHE short games is off the charts in my experience but these games are very good..But they have in general hurt the full games badly-all pot averages are down..Last week has seen these full games looking better thu....My hourly sd goes up~50% in the NLHE short games but my hourly rate is about 25% higher-it should be even higher when you consider that most NLHE full ring gmaes get out about 55 hph but the 6MAX's get out ~75 hph-a 35%ish increase in hph

Over the last 2-3 months the NLHE games are not as easy as they were.Thats why
i've returned to playing more short limit holdem-which I really am enjoy. So now I pretty much mix it up-always game selective.

[stripsqueez]

the limit games you describe are probably a bit soft so you could sustain a high win rate (which is not to say you cant maintain a high win rate at 5/10 6 max at party) - that would decrease the swings i suppose + short handed is a bit more volatile then ring games - its a minor fatness of bankroll issue longterm

i quickly got back from all these swings and often i lose like 2 sessions a week - from past experience of stronger short handed games, despite the generally poorer players at party, i have bigger or at least more common swings

i have been considering playing some NL - the omaha games at party have been a bit dead lately - i may see you there soon

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Schneids]

Today after 1 hour of 3-tabling 10/20 I was down 95BBs.

Swings can be gigantic in either direction though typically for me they aren't any larger than 25-50BBs in an hour.

[jerome baker]

[kiddo]

By a session u mean all tables for as long as you sit before disconectiong from Internet?

I play multiple tables at 5/10, 6max, its not often I go to bed losing 100BB. I would say about 1 day/month and I play about 150h/month (that is 50 hours at the tables), about 20 days/month.

I had a terrible downswing in January, losing about 250BB, both SH and full table. My biggest uppswing in 1 day is 150BB, my biggest downswing is 120BB (but I was down 170 that day but got lucky just before closing time /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

I try to follow a rule. If I lose the 25BB i sit down with I dont put in more $ at that table unless they are really bad. (but they often are when u are losing a lot, they stay in and raise with whatever and then hit)

[naphand]

In answer to your question; 50 BB downswing probably 5-6 times a month, 100 BB downswing maybe once every 2 months. The bigger downswings are linked to running bad, which may mean bigger than 100 BB or 2-3 of those in one month.

There are a lot of factors that affect the variance in these games, which makes it difficult to determine anything with a reasonable degree of precision. As for variance in SH games, I am still not sure this is real.

What affects this variance?

(i) The level of aggression.
(ii) Hands per hour.
(iii) Your personal playing style.
(iv) Strength of the opposition.
(v) Playing well/poorly.
(vi) Running good/bad.

If anyone can add to this list, go ahead.

Something that affects our perception of variance is the number of hands per hour. In a faster played game the ups and downs will seem to occur more frequently, and they do on the basis of time. But in fact, the more hands you play per hour the more likely statistical variation will be less. Averages are more accurate with larger sample sizes, if you play more hands per hour the average (variance) will be closer to the expected. So multi-tabling will not affect variance unless it also affects your ability to play well. For this reason variance per hour, when comparing full tables to SH, is meaningless. You should only be considering variance per 100 hands, if you wish to make valid comparisons.

Playing multiple tables should reduce the likelihood of big swings if you are a winning player, but only over TIME. Over each 100 hands, as has been pointed out, it makes no difference. This is why the same bankroll can be used for 1, 2 or more tables. If you are running bad, you may need to be more careful and/or reduce the number of tables you play, but only to allow yourself to concentrate better or reduce your exposure (debatable).

Your personal playing style and the level of aggression have a far greater effect on variance than the number of players at the table. Tighter players will experience less variance, less aggressive players also.

Better players/opposition will increase your variance as they directly affect your win rate. A lower win rate will increase variance.

I have looked at my poker tracker figures for playing full ring games and SH. Please bear in mind that I do not have any figures that mean anything above $2/$4.

First thing I noticed was how passive I was playing full games last year, tee-hee. However, my Standard Deviation (SD) per 100 hands was THE SAME for full ring games as it has been for SH. This is over 50K hands, and between two sites (Party and Poker Stars).

I have been playing much more aggressively since moving to Stars, due mainly to the learning process over the previous few months on this forum. BUT THE SD IS THE SAME. This is quite surprising, considering increased aggression likely results in more variance. Mitigating factors could be the fact that the games themselves are not more aggressive, just me, and my post-flop play and hand-reading may have improved also. I think Mason says somewhere on the forum that learning to read hands is the best way to reduce variance.

Incidentally, the SD per hour was very similar in both full and SH games but full games had a significantly higher SD per 100. This is the opposite of what you would expect from the received wisdom. This is why I have doubts. My experience has also been that I win a lot more sessions playing SH than full ring games.

It may simply be a reflection of my playing style, but I can certainly remember getting sucked out on a lot playing full tables. In full games you play less hands, you win fewer but larger pots and have to beat more players to those pots, which seems to me a recipe for increased variance. There are more cards that can spoil your hand, more players to read, less hands to play. Statistically you would expect greater variance in these games for these reasons.

So why more variance short-handed? Is there some way, mathematically, to demonstrate that the increased number of hands that must be played SH, is more than offset (proportionately) by the the number of opponents? By this I mean, you have to play more hands and the risk is proportionally greater due to the number of opponents those weaker hands must beat (as opposed to much stronger hands in full games). Is it solely due to the levels of aggression?

Aggression seems the most likely cause ofthe variance to me, in which case it does not apply to SH in general, as lower limit games are pretty passive. Aggression works well short-handed, but is it really the short-handedness that is the cause of variance? or just the aggression? I know the two are linked (for good players anyway) but if so, it does mean that players who play less aggressively can find games with less aggression and perhaps win well in those games, possibly even comparably to the more aggressive players (oh yes - that should stir it up /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. Comments from the higher-limit players and any stats you have comparing full to SH games?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
Your personal playing style and the level of aggression have a far greater effect on variance than the number of players at the table. Tighter players will experience less variance, less aggressive players also.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing much more aggressively since moving to Stars, due mainly to the learning process over the previous few months on this forum. BUT THE SD IS THE SAME. This is quite surprising, considering increased aggression likely results in more variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as your aggression is reducing the number of hands you are playing against and having to win against, this can have the effect of reducing your variance -- assuming any aggression you use does not become maniacal and your aggression is warranted by the fundamental theorem of poker. I promise you many 'passive' players in these games experience more variance than the aggressive players because they allow too many hands in for too cheaply and inevitably fail to protect their hand -- so, they get sucked out on a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
Aggression seems the most likely cause ofthe variance to me, in which case it does not apply to SH in general, as lower limit games are pretty passive. Aggression works well short-handed, but is it really the short-handedness that is the cause of variance? or just the aggression? I know the two are linked (for good players anyway) but if so, it does mean that players who play less aggressively can find games with less aggression and perhaps win well in those games, possibly even comparably to the more aggressive players (oh yes - that should stir it up)

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for other players here; but for me, the games I win the most in are loose aggressive games. I think less aggressive players could win almost as much in aggressive games if they recognize other players' unwarranted aggression and do not crumble at the first sign of resistance they receive (but still be winning more than if these same less aggressive players simply played in less aggressive games, themselves). That said, I don't think less aggressive players will win as much as the more (tight) aggressive players in LAG games, due to bets they'll often leave on the table in spots they could have reraised instead of called when against the loose-agg player. Does that make sense?

[naphand]

I have not doubt that the most profitable way to play short-handed is with aggression - as has been discussed here previously (so I don't want to revisit that subject again). At least in terms of BB/100 hands. And certainly it has been my experience that the loose/aggressive games are the most profitable.

However, I have seen it quoted here that players need to play aggressively if they are to cope with SH and that the variance is much greater. Obviously adjustments should be made, but I think there are a few players who raise in the 7-9% PF bracket who have a reasonably good win rate.

Certainly, by playing in more aggressive games, variation will go up a lot, and aggressive games/players are much more common SH. However, there are plenty of games available on Party and other sites, and with selection players could join softer games or leave when they get too hot.

I don't think major aggression and high variance are necessary to play profitably SH (even 2-3 BB/hr). I do think this is necessary for maximum EV, but many players will gladly exchange less EV for reduced variance. Certainly I had no problem beating Party $1/$2 with an average PF raise of 8% (when first starting) and I know of several players on Poker Stars (up to $3/$6) whose figures look like this, but who are winning players. I think the adjustment from average to aggressive is a big one to make as it affects your entire game, and your table selection. Being aggressive is one thing handling aggressive players is entirely something else (as I have found) and handling the psychological effects of large bankroll swings something else again. I don't believe it is necessary and I also do not feel compelled always to seek the biggest games. For example, if I had a tough couple of days/sessions I may start the say on a softer table, to build my confidence/check my game. I know at least one 2+2 poster who starts the day on a low limit SH table before playing $5/$10, to assess (call it what you like) their game for the day (akin to an athlete warming up?).

SH is much more fun than full tables, none of that dull waiting for premium hands, and this explains why SH tables are now outnumbering the full games on Party and Stars (where they are available). But also, I have regualrly seen players leave tables when an aggressive player starts turning the screw. Some people just don't want high variance or scary pots.

Your point about some passive players experiencing greater variance - agreed, this can be the case, but I was talking more of passive/weak players who tend to fold out sooner, rather than limpers/callers to the River. I also agree that correctly placed aggression will reduce variance for the reasons you give.

What I see, though is aggression used in different ways: Aggression based on card-play, and aggression based on players. The first is what most posts on the Forum deal with ("I had X was I right to Y?") and includes hand reading. The other, is the ability to use aggression to manipulate other players - that often is not well understood but regularly hinted at. I'm not talking specifically about putting people on tilt. Taking advantage of over-aggro players is part of it, but also getting people to play at you and build big pots. This pretty much requires some (apparently) -EV plays during the game, for the benefits it brings later. This is an altogether trickier part of the game, and one I admittedly still struggle to balance correctly.

This latter type of play will increase variance more than any other play IMO, but is the reason why the best players make the most money. They have mastered it, or nearly so, or at least understand it and can use it effectively. It is also may be the reason why some players' aggression is much higher than others in their stats when their overall play (by hand type) may look the same as a less aggro player, a level of aggression that would be hard to achieve based on hand-strength alone.

This is a difficult distinction to make, but it is one IMO that certainly exists. I think that a lot of people reading the forum would struggle to reach the levels of aggression displayed by the top posters/players. But is it really necessary to do so, to play profitable SH (2-3 BB/hr)? A win rate of 2-3 BB/hr appears to be possible with a variance level very similar to full ring games, from what I have seen.

So why play SH? you may ask. Hmmm, that's a personal choice....

Anyone else have figures to support the idea that SD SH is not significantly different SD full?

[sthief09]

is there any way of finding streaks on PT? Or do you just make mental notes of your best and worst sessions after they happen? thanks

[naphand]

There is nothing specific in PT to identify "streaks" but the figures that I find indicate/support my feeling that I have had bad cards are:

(i) Getting crap pocket cards: very low V$IP %.

(ii) Getting drawn out a lot: look at the W@SD %.

I find these two figures are fairly consistent over even just a few hundred hands, unless something is not right. A session with a very low W@SD is often a tough one, and a low V$IP is consistent with getting crap cards generally.

As for hands where you are getting good pockets but missing the flop a lot? look at the W$WSF figure.

Also you can select date periods and see what kind of BB/hr figs you were getting, and also look at positional results.

[sthief09]

thanks for the response.

I wish PT had a feature to graph stuff, to mark progress. It'd be interesting to see what a profit vs. #hand graph would look like.

[Eihli]

You won't have bigger downswings other than the affect of multi-tabling on your play, that is correct. But, his question was how often a 50 and 100 bb downswing will happen. To answer his question: 4 times as often than when you play 1 table (assuming multitable = 4 table).

[naphand]

That is not necessarily correct.

4 times as many tables does not equate with 4 times as much variance. Over 100 hands it should be no different. Over time it might even be LESS. This is because a winning player will show more wins than losses, by definition. By playing 4 tables, the results will average out "more quickly". Sometimes referred to as "reaching the long-run sooner".

The variance on each table individually will be the same as playing one table, on 4 tables the variance will be less as you are now looking at the average of 4 tables, and hence less fluctation from the expected value. This assuming other factors are equal, which they probably won't be (losses may be linked to playing when tired/distracted etc. and playing 4 tables will tend to magnify this.

[naphand]

Damn right. I suggest that forum users e-mail

support@pokertracker.com

NOW and request precisely this for future updates. Pat has been excellent with his upgrades and will certainly respond to a clarion-call from users here, as his software gets plenty of exposure on these threads (for goodreasons).

Graphs are always fun to look at, and should not be too hard to program into the software.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[lil']

How often am I down 50 BB? Lately every other day, ha ha ha.

I have discovered I begin to suck if I play more than 2 tables at once. The variance gets to me and I get stupid.