Hi guys, new poster, theoretical question

#1 12-02-2005, 08:44 PM

Hey guys, ive been a lurker for awhile, this is my first post.

My question is regarding variance. Lets say for instance a solid STT player who is not familiar with bankroll management deposits 200 into an online poker site and decides that is plenty of money to play $20 stts. He starts off on an absolute heater and wins enough to build a proper bankroll for playing 20 stts. Can this player expect to continue to profit even after variance hits or will variance hit him so hard that he will no longer have the required roll for 20 stts, teaching him a valuable lesson?

Thanks for the replies guys. I am still getting used to putting my thoughts into words (very difficult for me) so excuse any flaws in my post. Thanks!

tipperdog · #2 12-02-2005, 08:47 PM

The latter. The lady named variance doesn't know what's happened to you in the past...it just seems that way.

bluefeet · #3 12-02-2005, 08:49 PM

Hi Wondercall, welcome.

Varience doesn't compensate, nor does it have a memory. It just is.

Either of your scenarios are possible. Regardless of how he now came to be properly rolled.

(and if this is you...maybe you're just g00t! good luck)

lacky · #4 12-02-2005, 08:50 PM

well if you, er "he", feels like "he" has a solid grasp, and the money isn't real important to "he" then play $22's. If any of the above doesnt apply to your, er "his" situation, drop down to $11's to learn at.

johnnybeef · #5 12-02-2005, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well if you, er "he", feels like "he" has a solid grasp, and the money isn't real important to "he" then play $22's. If any of the above doesnt apply to your, er "his" situation, drop down to $11's to learn at.

[/ QUOTE ]

what the hell are you implying here steve?

Irieguy · #6 12-02-2005, 09:31 PM

Your question gets to the heart of a common gambling/statistical misconception invovling an apparent paradox between two concepts:

1. Independent Trials: "The cards have no memory." The historical results of a random event have no bearing on the results of the event the next time it occurs. It doesn't matter how hot or cold you have been running for X hands. For the next X hands you rate to win at your win rate +/- your standard deviation

2. Regression to the mean: "Everything evens out in the end." Regression to the mean is real, but it isn't a phenomenon... it's just what happens because of how "mean" is defined. The more trials you have, the closer your actual mean result will come to your expected mean result. But if your actual results are skewed, you don't suddenly become more likely to have results that weight your average in the opposite direction.

These two concepts should be easy to understand, but I have seen several 2+2ers employ the casino-betting strategy of waiting until the roulette wheel has come up red 5 times in a row and then betting their whole bankroll on black.

Variance isn't an entity. It has no power, no volition, and no meaning. It is just concept. A concept so hard to grasp that we give it ultimate power, malignant volition, and supreme meaning in our little pea brains.

Irieguy

benfranklin · #7 12-03-2005, 03:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The more trials you have, the closer your actual mean result will come to your expected mean result. But if your actual results are skewed, you don't suddenly become more likely to have results that weight your average in the opposite direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume a noob plays an undefined game where his skills should result in an average score of 50. He plays some number of games, and due to beginners luck his actual mean result is 75. His actual results are skewed from expected, but as you say, he is not likely to have a sudden string of scores with a mean of 25 that take his average to the expected mean. Rather, it is likely that he will have a long string of results with a mean score of 50. The long string with a mean of 50 will soon dwarf the short initial string of mean 75, making it insignificant.

The original post assumes that the player is playing over his head, since it states that he achieves a proper bankroll for that limit by being on a heater. If he is on a heater, he is by definition in a nonsustainable position.

The OP has greatly confused the issue. He asks what happens when variance hits. If the player is on a heater, variance has already hit, and the player is in the ozone of higher positive variance. The question is what happens when reality hits. Variance is deviation from the norm or the expected. If the player is on a heater, the real averages will bring him back to earth.

[ QUOTE ]

Variance isn't an entity. It has no power, no volition, and no meaning. It is just concept. A concept so hard to grasp that we give it ultimate power, malignant volition, and supreme meaning in our little pea brains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is history, and it is the unpredictable future. It is statistical noise. Variance is what you see in the rear-view mirror on the road trip of life, and what screws up your perfect plans.

If you rent a U-Haul truck for your next move, it is probably capable of averaging about 55 MPH. If you get it going down hill with a tail wind on the open road, it might reach 70 MPH. If you are stuck in traffic in the city, you might do 30 MPH. Doing 70 or doing 30 are variance due to circumstances. Doing 55 is all you can and should expect.

pergesu · #8 12-03-2005, 03:53 AM

I was reading Zen and the Art of Poker in B&N the other day, and the author discussed running hot and cold. He basically said that when you're running cold, you shouldn't push small edges because, well, you're just not doing well at the moment. He also says not to go to war against players who were running particularly well.

It just left me scratching my head, and I thought it was totally wrong. Anyway I think the only reason I'm even bringing this up is because of the book title and the fact that you have an interest in Zen. *shrug*

splashpot · #9 12-03-2005, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He basically said that when you're running cold, you shouldn't push small edges because, well, you're just not doing well at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only way I could justify this is if losing with those small edges will put you on tilt and cause you to make -EV moves. Otherwise this is just gambler's fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
He also says not to go to war against players who were running particularly well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, gambler's fallacy. Unless those players are not just "running well", but infact skilled players.

tjh · #10 12-03-2005, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading Zen and the Art of Poker in B&N the other day, and the author discussed running hot and cold. He basically said that when you're running cold, you shouldn't push small edges because, well, you're just not doing well at the moment. He also says not to go to war against players who were running particularly well.

It just left me scratching my head, and I thought it was totally wrong. Anyway I think the only reason I'm even bringing this up is because of the book title and the fact that you have an interest in Zen. *shrug*

[/ QUOTE ]

A book on poker should not use terms like "running hot" or "running cold". When I discuss poker with someone and they start talking like that I basically give up on getting worthwhile info advice or enjoyable discussion from that person.

"Man the low cards were really hitting last night so I started to play them and it really paid off"

"My pocket pairs had not caught a set all night so I knew I was due"

This comes down to confirmation bias and superstition. The only time this silliness works in your favor is that you can use other folks superstition against them.

If they think that you are "running hot" or "catching cards" well good for them, keep betting. Just do not make the mistake of believing that you are an "ace magnet".