A good example of how long swings can last -- why taking shots is bad.

[JoshuaD]

This image is worth 1000 words:



That's all my hands since I got pokertracker back at the beginning of december. 3.79BB/100 after 80,000 hands on average. I'm nowhere near that good. I've got some big leaks in my game. But here I am, 80,000 hands later, running nearly double what I should be. Some would conclude from my 3/6 stats that I'm probably an "above average" 3/6 player, while I think calling me even a 2BB/100 winner at 3/6 is optimistic. 13,000 hands is nothing. 80,000 is nothing.

I can easily go another 80,000 hands and run half of what I should be running. I could play exactly the same game, and have the results change entirely.

At first, I was awed that CDC ran 60,000 hands break even, but now it makes sense. The swings in poker are longer and bigger than we all expect.

This leads me to conclude that "taking a shot" at a limit is a terrible thing to do. It's too easy to run good for 10,000 hands, convince yourself you're beating a game, and in fact be a loser there. Just because you play TAG doesn't mean you're a winner. I still think there's a good 25% chance that I'm losing at 3/6, even with how I've run so far. I would hate to find that out taking a shot at 5/10 or 10/20.

I'm not sure how interesting this is to anyone else, but I think it's really important to put things like this in perspective. I know I have trouble not caring how well I do. Looking at things this way has helped me, maybe it will help you guys too.

[DMBFan23]

Fold BB to steal 70? NIT!!!!

just kidding, wow you are running well and/or playing well. probably both. hope it continues for you

[freehat]

I haven't done the confidence intervals but you are nuts if you think there is a 25% chance that you are not a winner at 3/6 with your stats.

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm nowhere near that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are? Or, even more likely, that you're a good 2BB/100 or 2.5BB/100 player who is running lucky WHILE being good?

I think people are too quick to dismiss any >1.5BB/100 winner as being "on a lucky streak." But look at the facts:
1. In poker, the money you win comes from other people's mistakes.
2. At the tables where we routinely play, other players make more mistakes than you could possibly imagine.

Let's say the "average mistake" costs a player 0.1 BBs. This mistake could be a big'un like folding to a river bluff or a lil'un like completing out of the SB after three limpers with 73o. Let's also say that the average low-limit Party Poker player gets two chances to act per hand on average and screws up one of the two choices (not unreasonable assumptions, and you can bicker with the specific numbers if you want -- the thrust of the argument is the same). That's 0.1BB per player times nine other players at the table, or almost a full big bet extra in the average pot! Clearly, we can't collect all of that money, but if we get just a tiny fraction of that money, we come out as huge long-run winners.

The typical low-limit Party Poker player is WAY too passive and WAY too loose and really a horrifically terrible player. Given that they are so much worse than the typical 2+2er, why would we assume that we're not "good enough" to win 2+BB/100 on average?

Josh, you're no Daniel Negranu, but that's not the point. You don't HAVE to be to win big consistently. All you have to be is better than your average competitor, and I think you HAVE to agree that you are.

"And it's not even close. Do you see why?" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[JoshuaD]

Hey guys, thanks for the vote of confidence. I agree my 25% number was a little pessimistic, but I wasn't really concentrating on that. (I think the 99.96% number the stats formula pops out is optimistic -- I've seen my cards, I'm running above average).

But how well I've run isn't the point of the thread. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'm just trying to help illustrate how long you can run good or bad, and how long the long run really is. 100,000 hands is nowhere near the long run.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
This leads me to conclude that "taking a shot" at a limit is a terrible thing to do. It's too easy to run good for 10,000 hands, convince yourself you're beating a game, and in fact be a loser there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't it true that if we never took shots at a limit we'd never move up from where we're at. Does that mean that you're going to stay at 3/6 for the rest of your life?

I'll agree that it's easy to run good for 10,000 hands but, that shouldn't be the measure of beating a game. I think this is emphasized enough on this forum as that it's not really a major problem.

Also, don't negate the fact that you're learning as your "taking your shot". The fortunate players are the ones who got lucky in their first 10,000 hands. Over those 10,000 hands of luck they actually learned how to play the game and after that point started beating it out of skill, not luck.

[squeek12]

"taking a shot" means playing above your bankroll. if you move up limits with sufficient bankroll, it isn't considered "taking a shot"

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it true that if we never took shots at a limit we'd never move up from where we're at. Does that mean that you're going to stay at 3/6 for the rest of your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm gonna hang around 3/6 for a while. I like being able to 8-table my limit, and I don't think I'll be able to do that at 5/10 or 10/20. Furthermore, I'd like to be much more confident than I am now that I'm beating 3/6 for >2BB/100 before moving up.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, don't negate the fact that you're learning as your "taking your shot". The fortunate players are the ones who got lucky in their first 10,000 hands. Over those 10,000 hands of luck they actually learned how to play the game and after that point started beating it out of skill, not luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. I guess I'm more risk averse than most people on these forums, but I don't like moving up until I'm really confident I'm beating the game I'm in.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
"taking a shot" means playing above your bankroll. if you move up limits with sufficient benefits, it isn't considered "taking a shot"

[/ QUOTE ]

Define sufficient bankroll. I've got 600BB's for 8-tabling 3/6, I wouldn't feel too comfortable with much less while 8-tabling.

[DMBFan23]

this kind of reminds me of a post where elindauer one time said something like "forget PT. this one time I saw a guy call 3 bets cold with A8o preflop. I knew he was a losing player, with only a one hand sample"