|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting drawdown study
{Note - I did this in Excel in like 30 minutes so it's possible I made an error - however, I believe the results to be correct}
Suppose you have the choice of playing 1 table of 30-60 at a winrate of 1.6BB/100, or 4 tables of 15-30 with a winrate of 0.97BB/100 each. Take these winrates as given. In both cases your stdev/100 is 18BB (shorthanded play - I am also assuming 100 hands per hour per table). If you assume poker hands are iid normally distrubted, then multitabling is the better choice. Your hourly expected earn is 0.97*30*4 = $116.40, with a stdev of $1080. The expected earn playing 1 table is 1.6*60 = $96, with the same $1080 stdev. How about drawdowns? I define drawdown as the difference between your current bankroll and the highest it's ever been. In the studies below, I used a monte-carlo simulation over 1000 hours, meant to represent 1 years' worth of play. The chances of experiencing a $30,000 peak-to-trough drawdown under the single-table assumptions is about 7.9%. Under the multi-table assumptions, the chances of a $30,000 drawdown drop to 4.6%. Now, change the player profiles a little bit. Sam the single tabler plays better when he's running good. His expected winrate is: 2BB/100 when he's within 50BB of his alltime high. 1.5BB/100 when he's between 50 and 150BB from his alltime high. 1.0BB/100 when he's in a >150BB drawdown. Marty the multitabler has similar characteristics: 1.5BB/100 when he's within 50BB of his alltime high. 1.0BB/100 when he's between 50 and 150BB from his alltime high. 0.5BB/100 when he's in a >150BB drawdown. It so happens that Sam's long-run winrate is 1.6BB/100, same as my first example, and Marty's winrate is 0.97BB/100, also same as my multitable example above. The chances of Sam experiencing a $30,000 peak-to-trough drawdown are 17.8% - more than double the number I got when I assume he plays the same all the time. The probability of Marty experiencing a $30,000 drawdown is 20.7%, even worse than Sid, and over 4 times worse than someone who can maintain an identical winrate through good times and bad. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
surprised noone has responded to this yet, awesome and interesting work - thanks for the info Ryno.
Even more data that inspires playing a constant A game. -DrG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
Great post. Maybe you should also add it to the probability forum.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
Nice work. So the basic conclusion is that tilt has a more pronounced effect on multi-tablers (because they have a slightly lower winrate).
I would be interested to see the effect of a more realistic "micro-tilt". E.g. Fred: 1.5BB/100 Most of the time 1.25BB/100 When on a 50+ drawdown 1.0BB/100 when he's in a 100+ drawdown. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
It came up because I mentioned in another forum that I don't multitable, and I got an interesting response from stoxtrader, so it got me thinking what other benefits there might be. But the study is not necessarily about multi-tabling vs. single-tabling - it's about the sick swings you can experience with a slim winrate, and how much worse they can get if your performance is path-dependant.
Regarding your setup: Winrate = 1.22BB Probability of experiencing a 1000BB drawdown over 1000hrs: 3.6% |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested to see the effect of a more realistic "micro-tilt". [/ QUOTE ] In my opinion, this is actually less realistic. Obviously it's all speculation, but I think the 1 BB/100 difference in expectation based on recent results is probably typical. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
nice work, how would the results differ if you used winrate/hand and sd/hand instead of per 100?
aren't they independent events afterall? why do we use 100 - I think previsouly these calculations were done manually and this was a necessary simplification, but with powerful programs to do this why not use per hand as the standard? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
it doesn't matter. you just devided the winrate by 100 and the stdev by sqrt(100) or 10 and will get the same results. i think people use per 100 because it's the pokertracker convention.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
doesnt it matter because it makes your sample size much larger? This would cause attainable confidence intervals at lower hand counts.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting drawdown study
Once I define the test period as 1000 hours on the drawdown studies, all of the unit questions are taken care of. If I used per hand, per 100, etc., I would get the same answer. The reason I don't like "per hand" is that the distribution of returns hand-to-hand are very non-normal. Granted, over 1000 hours I'm way into Large Numbers and it won't matter, but sometimes I do small sample size tests.
|
|
|