discuss
 

i posted privately to a friend but i might as well put it out here.

what online is teaching us, where seemingly good winning players can "run bad" for 100k hands, and not know anything with confidence until they reach a million hands, is that the long term is so very long term in limit hold em because luck is a much bigger factor than previously thought (or than "experts" have let on or even realised).

in fact, once you get beyond some very simple concepts like degrees of tightness and the logic of basic postflop play, the game is primarly luck. how you play 55 on the button after two limpers, what you do w/ KQ utg (or KJ for that matter), and so on and so forth are meaningless. all that matters is how you ran that night for a couple hours and whether youre smart enough to go spend your winnings on something worthwhile or chump enough to squander it away through another period of "running bad".

im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing. the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake. and ive won every year ive played, more and more each year, for the past 5 years. and that's meaningless.

Re: discuss
 

Below is a slightly modifidied version of a 'Theory' that I posted in the Poker Theory Forum in early December, 2004.

************************************************** ******

Zeno’s Theory of Poker

The only people (or institutions) that make money at poker are those that make a living from other poker players that think they can make a living off of playing poker. The rest is superfluous.

Perhaps another way of stating the above is:

Poker is a continual self-perpetuating hoax, and most that engage in it never realize it.

This is a working hypothesis, which means, in the parlance of science, that it is in a state of flux. What is also paramount to any working hypothesis is what it does not say, either by deliberate exclusion or implicitly.


The above ‘Working Hypothesis’ is a copyright of Zeno World Domination Enterprises Inc. - The first and last in Nuclear Arsenals and other useful toys. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.


-Zeno: Zen Pokermaster

Re: discuss
 

I find this line entirely inconsistent with your exhortation that I take on a mortgage.

-Michael

Re: discuss
 

ok but what i say expands on what you did considerably and it sounds like what youre saying is that some players make money off of other players who dont realise they cant beat the game. your definition is open to enough interpretation to continue the hegemony of current mainstream poker bullcrapp: namely the idea that there is enough skill inherent in limit hold em to make it less than random short term luck that lasts for years on end.

my theory makes room for:

a: donkeys weve all seen who play almost randomly and terribly who undoubtedly win month after month, sometimes for years.

b: seemingly good disciplined winning players who run poorly, break even, or even lose for months on end at a time.

it's all because of the new evidence given us from online play, online swings, online results, etc. evidence that all points to the long term being so long that the game is meaningless in terms of earning money, and evidence that proves the game is more luck based than previously thought.

Re: discuss
 

"I find this line entirely inconsistent with your exhortation that I take on a mortgage."

no it's not. the idea is you take the money youve made and

SPEND IT!

dont give yourself the chance to run bad for 5 figures or whatever.

and then get a regular job. it doesnt have to be something you hate, in fact it doesnt have to be regular. but there is more to life than letting what you do depend on the primarily luck based world of limit hold em.

Size Matters
 

You're right and you're wrong.

It's all about edge. What you've been hearing or possibly even experiencing for yourself online is due to a significant reduction in edge. 1bb/100 is a respectable win rate online, yet this would be considered puny by most live game standards among professionals.

Reduced edge greatly increases fluctuation. Increased fluctuation means you have to sift through more luck before it trues up. It would be almost impossible for a good player to go a 100k hands in a live game and not know anything. It's not the "live" that makes it any different, it's the difference in edge.

Re: discuss
 

Wow. This is really depressing.

PS Hooray for NL.

Re: discuss
 

1bb/100 is acceptable. waiting to log 3 million hands before you really know youre a 1bb/100 player is not. well wait make that 2.5 million at least that's what they told me youd need over at the probability forum to be withing +/-.1bb/100 confidence level. but i think that guy may have fudged the SD too low so it's actually more like 5 million.

"It would be almost impossible for a good player to go a 100k hands in a live game and not know anything. It's not the "live" that makes it any different, it's the difference in edge."

and the idea that live games are better or have less fluctuation or online games have reduced edge does not bear out. the live games ive played in are incredible by standards previously thought to matter like looseness, passiveness, fishiness, but these online games are even more incredible. so live players need at least 2 million hands themselves. let's see... 35 hands per hour time 2000 hours is 70,000 hands per year...so hmm that's like 25-30 years.. seems reasonable.... NOT!

random meaningless ultra-long term luck based GAMBLING hoax.

Re: discuss
 

Two words - Working hypothesis. So continual refinment is anticipated.

Note also that many people or institutions make money off poker in a secondary fashion or manner and not by directly playing themselves. There are a few other things to note in my initial post also.

Anyway, it's late and I must retire. Carry on.

By the way, all of life may be a hoax or some cosmic joke. So poker is only one small splinter of the LUDICROUS whole. Next hand.

-Zeno

Re: discuss
 

If your edge is .5bb/100, I hazard to guess you'd need about 400k hands to be assured a win. You could hit rock bottom at about 100k hands. You'd need about a 633 big bet bankroll. And yes. You would need a LOT of hands for your edge to true up. 5 mil to get within .1/100 seems a little high though. Maybe 5 mil for .01/100.

<font color="red"> by standards previously thought to matter like looseness, passiveness, fishiness, </font>

Previously thought to matter? Please don't be changing poker theory without telling me. just kidding [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]



<font color="red">so live players need at least 2 million hands themselves.</font>

You don't need 2 million hands. I'm sure you would be well within 10% of a big bet of your true expectation within a couple of years. It certinaly wouldn't take anywhere near 25-30. After a point what does it matter? If you are a 20-40 player, is it going to make or break you if you're making $35/hr. instead of $37/hr.? All that matters is you are winning somewhere near 1bb/hr. and it shouldn't take more than 4000-6000 hours to know that. In fact, you'll likely be able to suspect this sometime between year 1 and year 2.

<font color="red"> random meaningless ultra-long term luck based GAMBLING hoax. </font>

This sound like someone who's been running bad. Everything Ok?

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
This sound like someone who's been running bad. Everything Ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, and no [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(Refering to myself, not Mike)

Re: discuss
 

mike,

i have a lot of respect for you and what you write, but this post sucks. we know there's a lot of short term luck involved, but we play because every time we sit down at the poker table, we have a better chance of winning than losing. yeah there's a lot of luck involved, but it's dead wrong to say all the little marginal decisions don't matter.

[ QUOTE ]

im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing. the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake. and ive won every year ive played, more and more each year, for the past 5 years. and that's meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm calling bullshit on this statement. find me a really good player who isn't sure to win the money in the long run. and if you're talking about the short run, well we all knew that anyway. you're results for the last five years sure as hell aren't meaningless. you're results for the last three months are.

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm calling bullshit on this statement. find me a really good player who isn't sure to win the money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point. Mike is saying we need to re-evaluate what we call "the long run"

How long are you suggesting it is? Apperntly somewhere between 3 months and 5 years?

Re: discuss
 

Interesting to hear this from so well-respected a poster. Personally, after starting $5/$10 5Max on PokerRoom.com at +340 BB, it's been -210 BB directly afterwards, and poker honestly doesn't even feel like the same game. When 5 times an hour, you 3-bet AK, are called by K2s, and see a K27 flop...man...this game feels crazy. I finally understand how El D. listed a 30k break-even stretch.

Re: discuss
 

"I finally understand how El D. listed a 30k break-even stretch."

that's just the tip of the iceberg. as time goes on you will read some really ugly stuff. and all of it will lead directly to what im saying. the math is there, it all adds up. limit hold em is a farce.

good luck guys!

Re: discuss
 

"within .1/100 seems a little high"

"I'm sure you would be well within 10% of a big bet of your true expectation within a couple of years."

check with others. the math does not bear this out.

"This sound like someone who's been running bad."

ive run bad, but before that i ran good, so good i bought 5 houses w/ the extra money (not own outright, just "own"), and before that i ran bad at times, but mostly ran really really good. and right now im running okay, but i think due to my thinking on this, my clarity, im about to run better than ever.

in other words: your theory stinks.

Re: discuss
 

"find me a really good player who isn't sure to win the money in the long run."

define long run.

(hint: your answer will be very wrong.)

Re: discuss
 

mike -

Do you feel differently about NL?

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I finally understand how El D. listed a 30k break-even stretch."

that's just the tip of the iceberg. as time goes on you will read some really ugly stuff. and all of it will lead directly to what im saying. the math is there, it all adds up. limit hold em is a farce.

good luck guys!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it.

If LHE is just a farce, why are you going to continue playing? Just for fun?

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
This sound like someone who's been running bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

and/or someone who didn't keep records when he was running good.

Re: discuss
 

I don't think mike is saying that LHE cannot be +EV, just that the variance is ridiculously high.

Re: discuss
 

Maybe still +EV but it contains a whole ton of luck. It's so up and down it's crazy, silly crapshoot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
i posted privately to a friend but i might as well put it out here.

what online is teaching us, where seemingly good winning players can "run bad" for 100k hands, and not know anything with confidence until they reach a million hands, is that the long term is so very long term in limit hold em because luck is a much bigger factor than previously thought (or than "experts" have let on or even realised).

in fact, once you get beyond some very simple concepts like degrees of tightness and the logic of basic postflop play, the game is primarly luck. how you play 55 on the button after two limpers, what you do w/ KQ utg (or KJ for that matter), and so on and so forth are meaningless. all that matters is how you ran that night for a couple hours and whether youre smart enough to go spend your winnings on something worthwhile or chump enough to squander it away through another period of "running bad".

im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing. the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake. and ive won every year ive played, more and more each year, for the past 5 years. and that's meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were to graph my win rate I sense that I would get a line with up and downswings (little squiggles) lasting three to ten thousand hands or so with the downswings being shorter than the upswings in a ratio of about two to one in aggregate.

Going longer term I sense that I would see longer term variations (bigger squiggles) in my win rate lasting thirty to fifty thousand hands.

What Mike is saying is that if you play long enough you will see monster variations in your win rate lasting three to five hundred thousand hands. When you eventually hit this downswing you are going down and there is nothing you can do about it.

Ouch.

Re: discuss
 

Here’s a few other things to consider mike.

How much to do you think is raked/collected/tipped out of all poker games in the world each year. I'm talking every online game, every public B&amp;M game, and every home game, in the world. Let's say it's one billion dollars per year. This means that the hugest +EV play in the history of earth is available to us right now, the poker players. If we thought of ourselves as a single organism, and we all quit playing for life, today, it would be a billion-dollar per-year swing.

Another thing. Add up how much in rake and tips that you, mike, have paid in the last five years. I’m guessing it’s about $100,000. Now add that number to your actual "winnings" as you calculate them. That sum is the true measure, for it is the only measure, of just how “lucky” you have been. If there’s one time to be results oriented, it’s when you’re talking about results. This idea you have in your head about needing to play millions of hands in order to determine what "should" happen in the next millions of hands is just goofy. The only way I know to keep score, in any game, is by looking at what happened, not by conjecturing about what might happen next.

Here’s another thing. Hold’em didn’t used to exist. And it used to have one blind. Now it has two blinds. Tomorrow it might have three. Right now hold’em is structured well for the house. Tomorrow it might be structured better for the house, meaning the affect of “skill” would be less, meaning the money would stay in motion on the table longer, meaning more of it would go down the hole, faster.

What if the house just raked everyone’s money before the first hand was even dealt and said okay, that’s it, everybody go home?

That’s what all public poker is mike. Just like that. The rate of rake is a balance between what the house can get, and what we’ll give. The game itself is just a product for sale.

The perfect arrangement for the house would be if nobody ever won, but everyone said they did. I’ve played in games like that before. But of course I’m the guy who really DID win!


Tommy

Re: discuss
 

Mike,

You are overstating your case by quite a bit. This question has been answered many times in the Probability forum, but I'll do calcualtion here, since you mentioned something about the math.

Typical limit SD is between 14 and 17 BB/100. Let's call it 15. Then after 100K hands, the sample win rate of a player whose true win rate is 1 BB/100 has a normal distibution with:

mean = 1
SD = 15/sqrt(1000) = .47

This means that 95% of the time the player's sample win rate will be within .94 BB of his true win rate. In addition, there is only about a 1.6% chance that such a player will be even or losing after 100K hands. This kind of evidence is very far from meaningless, IMO.

gm

Re: discuss
 

i really dont understand what the whole "hoohaa" is all about here. maybe youre right, poker really does suck. i dont know. all i know is all the money ive won during my short lived career. it may be miniscule to the people on here making 200k a year however, even though its only because they are all on the better side of variance than i am, according to you.

youre right though. you shouldnt base your future earn on what youre currently earning in poker right now. variance is fearce. when someone asks what it is that you do for a living, dont say poker player. say that youre retired, for thats what you are. you have money. you play poker on the side. until that money runs dry you are retired. look at it from that perspective.

Re: discuss
 

Here's another way of looking at it mathematically, maybe. Correct me if I'm wrong, gaming mouse, but I'm working on understanding this standard deviation and variance stuff.

Assumptions:

100 hands = 1 hour of play.
SD for 1 hour of play = 15BB.
expectation for 1 hour of play = 1BB.
number of hands in 1000 hours = 100,000.
2SD = 95% confidence interval.

SD for 1000 hours = 15BB * sqrt(1000 hours) = 474 BB

There is a 95% chance that after 1000 hours of 100 hands per hour that a 1BB/hour player's results will end up between

1000BB - (474BB * 2) and 1000BB + (474 * 2) or
52BB and 1948BB.

If I did this correctly, it's clear that a 1BB/100 player should not be losing, but he could easily not be winning very much after 100,000 hands.

Re: discuss
 

Well, are there any winning players on here who have logged a losing year (assuming they played a fair amount over that year)? I suppose that this would provide support for your argument.

I concede that how I play 77 after 2 limpers on the button with tight blinds is trivial, but I think the mistakes that your opponents make add up faster than you are giving it credit for. We make the vast majority of our money from the latter, not the former.

- Jags

Re: discuss
 

So is the standard deviation that huge?

I think you are a winning player and you know it. Skill has to take over at some point.

What might be happening, is that there are so many players with some skills, but not that good. So if there are fewer fish, it's harder to win, and the standard deviation might not go up that much but your edge is less and less.

Re: discuss
 

I agree to some extent with Mike. However, I think that game selection and quality of competition is being lost in this discussion. This is the single biggest factor when trying to figure out standard deviation, what is the 'long run', etc., whether someone is a winning or losing player, etc.

I am not a mathmetician. Never will be, never have claimed to be. However, I know that if I play with players that are better than me, make better decisions than me, understand pot odds and things better than me, read me better than I read them, I will lose.

If I play with people, each one my exact speed, I will lose, because of the rake.

If I play with people who, on average, are slightly worse then me, I will make a little, not too much, because of the rake and luck and standard deviation.

However, if I sit down at a table with several inferior players, who do not have the experience, knowledge, and training that I do, and are concerned about things like grocery money and rent and the like, I will beat them. There may be some short-term downswings, but I will beat them. This math I understand.

It's all about game selection.

TSP

Re: discuss
 

"when someone asks what it is that you do for a living, dont say poker player. say that youre retired, for thats what you are. you have money. you play poker on the side. until that money runs dry you are retired. look at it from that perspective."

I agree. That's exactly how I see it. That why, if someone asks me, "Oh, you're a poker pro? Well what are you going to do about retirement?"

I reply, "Retire from what?"

Re: discuss
 

Mason Malmuth covers much on this and similar concepts in his book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

The change in style of play etc for some poker games may vary the numbers a bit since it was published (I have the 5th edition, first printing, May 1999) but all the concepts are rock solid.

-Zeno

Re: discuss
 

Do you know mike that in science you never "prove" anything? There is always the chance that you will observe something contrary to the theories you have accepted to date. In statistics, there is always some chance that your observations are an outlier. That is, if you do the statistic and determine that you are 95% sure you are at least a 1BB/100 player, then you will be wrong 5% of the time. If you say run the numbers and determine there is a .000000000001% chance that you are a losing player, you can be pretty sure you are not a losing player, but you can never be positive. That's statistics for you. (In regards to poker, all this glosses over the nasty complications that both your and your opponents', games are dynamic.) Certainly, the house's cut is pre ordained (though they have no gurantee enough people will play to cover their expenses), and the rake shifts everyone "true" win rate to the left.

I guess what I am trying to say is "Welcome to life! There are no guarantees." That applies to everything, not just poker.

Re: discuss
 

"the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake."

With this, I agree. The long run can indeed be quite long and therefore one can run good or bad for a lot longer than people really realized before the more accurate statistical database we have with online play than we had with B&amp;M play.

"im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing."

Here, I'm not so sure. I can go to just about any game at Commerce and tell you who won and who lost last year and who won more and who lost less and I bet I come pretty close. The reason is the better players do better. Period. I'm not sure exactly how long the long run is, but a year is pretty close. And if people are playing only, say, 30 hours/week, that's "only" 50,000 hands.

Re: discuss
 

'This means that the hugest +EV play in the history of earth is available to us right now, the poker players. If we thought of ourselves as a single organism, and we all quit playing for life, today, it would be a billion-dollar per-year swing."

how about a compromise and only play home games or underground games w/ very low rake, just enough to pay the dealers, etc?

"Add up how much in rake and tips that you, mike, have paid in the last five years. I’m guessing it’s about $100,000."

i wish it were that low. from some quick math in my head it's probably double that.

"What if the house just raked everyone’s money before the first hand was even dealt and said okay, that’s it, everybody go home?"

if somehow we all got the high of playing hold em from that then that would rock.

"The only way I know to keep score, in any game, is by looking at what happened, not by conjecturing about what might happen next."

the game is so so long term that all that matters is the short term. all that matters is how you did today. there is not long term, it's like infinity. ignore it. spend the money, do everything you can to win as much as you can in as short a period of time, avoid feeding the rake as much as possible. get little quick hits throughout the week rather than binging and smoking it all in one grand night.

Re: discuss
 

[ QUOTE ]
I concede that how I play 77 after 2 limpers on the button with tight blinds is trivial, but I think the mistakes that your opponents make add up faster than you are giving it credit for. We make the vast majority of our money from the latter, not the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is where the money comes from. I think mike is overstating the luck factor. I also think most players underestimate the differences in skill levels at the game. Most know there is a big difference between a true expert and a total fish, but once they've read a cpl. books and logged a year of winning poker, they think they are not that far off expert status themselves, and certainly well above fish level.

I believe the winrates we are seeing online are more to do with the level of competition. I play 5/10 6 max at Party and I no longer use _any_ table selection. I just sit down at the first 4 available tables and win (most days) The competition is simply that bad that I can consistently beat the rake with my mediocre skills.

I am sure that if I sat down with a table of experts online and played about 35k hands per month I would be losing after 2 months minimum. I may run good enough to win 1 month but to win more than that I would have to be on the run of a lifetime or improve quickly.

The only math I have to back this up is the hard evidence at the tables where the bad players consistently chase draws with horrible odds when I would fold. Long term (by anyone's definition) they are making losing plays, and the players not making those losing plays will get the money minus the rake.

I will lose to better players due to subtler levels of errors that I am unaware of. In the end winrate is dependant on relative skill levels - your's vs. your competition.

Re: discuss
 

"1000BB - (474BB * 2) and 1000BB + (474 * 2) or
52BB and 1948BB."

thanks. this proves my point.

Re: discuss
 

You're on tilt and making false reads because you're desperate.

Re: discuss
 

"I think mike is overstating the luck factor."

and how many hands have you played? 2 million? 25 years? otherwise you have no evidence to support it.

Re: discuss
 

<font color="red"> Well, are there any winning players on here who have logged a losing year (assuming they played a fair amount over that year)? </font>

I do not believe that a live player with a 1bb/hr. edge can have a losing 2000 hour period. 1000 maybe. Again, it's all about edge. If your edge is only .5bb/1hr., then you can go a much longer time without winning.

If Mike is not content with what he's making or how long he can go without winning, then he needs to acknowledge his game can improve. Either that, or he needs to find better games.

What is he trying to accomplish by going on a public forum and stating to a bunch of professional poker players that poker is mostly luck and calling bullsh*t on the whole thing? Other than making a fool of himself, I mean.