BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I hear from everyone if your BR gets too low then it's time to play lower stakes. I disagree with this "if your at least a break even player or better". Here is why, you have a BR of 500BB, with that kind of player and BR means you should never go broke, EVER! This will handle any and all variances in your game. So what if you get down even 200BB, you have the BR for that reason and you will get even again. IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hear from everyone if your BR gets too low then it's time to play lower stakes. I disagree with this "if your at least a break even player or better". Here is why, you have a BR of 500BB, with that kind of player and BR means you should never go broke, EVER! This will handle any and all variances in your game. So what if you get down even 200BB, you have the BR for that reason and you will get even again. IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is certain, except the fact that you can be certain of nothing in poker.

Even bankrolls considerably larger than 500BB can be cracked - it happens. Why? Because even when you are a 990-1 favorite you can still be beaten -


Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

whe your 500 BB bankroll drops to 200 BB you no longer havw a 500 BB bankroll. You have a 200 BB bankroll. You think the cars know you had 300 BB more 5k hands ago?

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
whe your 500 BB bankroll drops to 200 BB you no longer havw a 500 BB bankroll. You have a 200 BB bankroll. You think the cars know you had 300 BB more 5k hands ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I already thought of that and it doesn't make sense based on the initial BR for the purpose.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

pretend it's 2% (for simplicity) likely that you will ever lose 250 BB.

ok, you go and lose 250 BB. the chances you lose another 250 BB is still 2%. nothing has changed. it's still 2% that you'll win.

let's say you have AA against JTs. you're a big favorite. now the flop comes 982 with 2 of his suit. you aren't a big favorite anymore

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I get what you're saying... at point A we have 500BB and we say, "since we are a winning player we will for all intents and purposes never lose this 500BB." So we are gold to keep playing at this limit no matter what. But if we drop 300BB we have to say that our probability of losing 500BB is now higher than it was before. The probability of losing 500BB was close to 0%, but it was something... let's say it was 1 in 1,000. And in that 1 in 1,000 case, it has to start with a 300BB downswing first.

let's say that for winning players, all 500BB bankrolls have a 1 in 1,000 chance of dwindling to zero. Of these bankrolls, some will drop 300BB righ toff the bat. At that point, the bankrolls then have a probability of like 1 in 100 of dwindling to zero. Many people at this point reevaluate and say, "I feel the odds are now too high that I will bust out completely, so I will now go to a lower limit." But you don't have to. You just have to be aware that the probability of losing your roll went up 10-fold. It's like betting black on a roulette wheel. If you find a bankroll that started at 500BB and it's now at 100BB, you can't say, "Well we figured that at 500BB this bankroll had almost a zero chance of busting." That is like walking up to a roulette wheel that has spun black 15 times in a row and putting $10K on red because the odds of it being black 16 times in a row is so small... The original gambler's fallacy.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
But if we drop 300BB we have to say that our probability of losing 500BB is now higher than it was before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say that happens, we are covering the variance, not that we are less than a break even player, there is a difference. To me, when people say they are moving down, tells me they are not a break even player in which case your BR doesn't mean much.



[/ QUOTE ]You just have to be aware that the probability of losing your roll went up 10-fold. It's like betting black on a roulette wheel. If you find a bankroll that started at 500BB and it's now at 100BB, you can't say, "Well we figured that at 500BB this bankroll had almost a zero chance of busting." That is like walking up to a roulette wheel that has spun black 15 times in a row and putting $10K on red because the odds of it being black 16 times in a row is so small... The original gambler's fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between a streak and each individual event. We are betting on a streak than each individual event like in roulette. Were not just playing one hand of poker but a life long amount of hands (never ending so to speak). Again were at least a break even player with a calculated BR to cover variance. While there is always the chance of going bust, I believe you shouldn't move down unless you lose your BR. Then and only then will this tell you odds are you are not a break even player at those stakes and or possibly at any stakes.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

One more thought, say 300BB is the min. to never go broke. Now, before moving up in stakes say from 5/10 to 10/20 requires twice the BR. Then on the flip side if we just start out with our 300BB at a 5/10 in the big blind and fold, now we have 299BB and need to drop down in stakes...that is BS but that what is being implied by moving down in any case.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Opps, 299.5BB

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may be rare, but there are truly great holdem players (not to mention us shitty ones [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) who have had 500 BB downswings.

Good luck,
Matt