Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

Shadow, you rock. In fact, I'd say that you almost invariably rock. You're +EV. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

OOC, how did you come up with that range? It's been like 2-3 years since I've learned this.

--Dave.

Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

linky from FAQ

This might be what you're looking for. Bisonbison's formulas are for /100 hands rather than /hour. You can have a lot of fun playing around with the ranges

Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

DavidC:

Yes, indeed, I do fuking rock. More than you can imagine, even. But y'all can just ask your girlfriends to find out. Yes. All of them.

jaxUp:

Ugh, that link would have made my job a lot easier. That's a good link, everyone, and does exactly what the actual math does.

later.

Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

I agree with the above post, especially regarding playing scared and the quality of players at the higher levels.

Playing scared - as long as you view it as MONEY you're putting in the pot, then you're gonna be in trouble. You have to return to the fundamentals and do what you know you should do without letting your fear and emotions control you. This is often why wealthier ppl do better initially in poker. Because they don't fear losing that money. To a guy making $100k a year, playing 2/4 is like a guy who is making $25k a year playing .5/1. It's all relative. Don't play 2/4 like a guy making 25k a year. Act like you deserve to be there.



Player quality - I believe that the $2/4 players are WORSE on avg than the micro limit players, especially in the casinos. They are the ones who make a decent living and want to gamble for fun and don't care about losing money as long as they can hit a big pot occasionally. The micro level players are often trying really hard to learn to play well, which is why they are there. Yes, there are some real idiots there, but no more than in the 2/4 games.

Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's also rational to take -EV gambles, like getting fire insurance for your house and stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you're describing is part of Prospect Theory, which is what won Daniel Kahneman the Nobel Prize in Economics. And while he described this phenonenom, he didn't advocate it, and in fact described it as a human ERROR (i.e. irrational) in judgement*... unless the consequences of NOT taking that risk were unacceptable (e.g. your house burns down and you have nothing or you die and your family is bankrupted). The only time i see this being relevant in poker is in a tournament where you have a limited amount of time/hands to win the big prize. In day-to-day poker, taking -EV risks will lose you money in the long run.


* Tversky & Kahneman. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

Tversky & Kahneman. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

Kahneman & Tversky. (1984). Choices Values and Frames, American Psychologist, 39, 341-50.

Kahneman, D. (1991). Judgment and decision making: A personal view. Psychological Science, 2(3), 142-145.

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, XVLII (1979), 263-291.


I recommend all these papers to anyone learning poker.

Re: Moving Up Is Hard To Do
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


How close would we be, with a standard dev of 15/100 and a 95% confidence level?

I'm asking because I don't know, not just to be a smartass, but I'm curious, because I'm hopefully going to be moving up limits soon. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Edit: 99% confidence level too, if you don't mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even I know the answer!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Assuming that after 100,000 hands you have a winrate of 3 bb/100, and a SD of 15 bb/100, the .95 confidence level is:

[2.070307452, 3.929692548]

so, we can be almost an entire bb/100 off from our "true" winrate. (I think).

The .99 CI is: [1.778176881, 4.221823119]

And that's even bigger.

So basically, you can never really know your "true" winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you have to remember that it's a bell curve, so you're far more likely to be near the middle of that range than near the edges. In fact, without further evidence of the actual parameters, you must assume that your sample mean is the most probable value. I'm not saying it IS the parameter value... just that it's more likely to be the actual value than any other value in that range due to the inherent probabilities in bell curves.

What you're describing is the 95% and 99% CIs, so it's "possible" that your actual winrate is really outside that range....but not likely. The odds are that it's nearer to the sample mean.

If you do a linear analysis of your variance and find that each block of 5k hands is statistically similar in variance (there is a test for this) to the others, then you can assume that your winrate after 20k hands is your actual winrate for that type of play. Some would argue that 10k is enough if you're a very consistent player.