Worst downswing for a winning player.

[curtains]

Almost every winning 15-30 player I know has gone on at least an 8k to 10k losing streak, if not more. 40 OTM's for a winning player should be much more unlikely.

[Nottom]

Read this link )Them SNGs can be streaky ), play around in Excel, and be amazed by what can happen.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Lorinda's paradox states that an event that should happen to an individual once per lifetime should be posted daily on 2+2 and makes evaluating someone's skill level from a one-off post about a bad streak impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go that far. Suppose there are 1,500 regulars here who have played on average 1,000 tourneys each. If they all had 30% ITM's we'd expect to see 1 40 OOTM streak all up. If they all had 40% ITM's it's still very unlikely that we'd see any.

[eagle]

I am consistently amazed at how many smart people can be so fascinated by these streaks.

Will someone please write a program that simulates a coin flip?

Run the simulation for a million flips adding up the streaks and post the lengths and distibutions of them.

Everybody can then compare their bad streaks to a coin flip. It will probably make everyone feel better when their losing.

[lorinda]

I wouldn't go that far. Suppose there are 1,500 regulars here who have played on average 1,000 tourneys each. If they all had 30% ITM's we'd expect to see 1 40 OOTM streak all up. If they all had 40% ITM's it's still very unlikely that we'd see any.

Over the whole of the site though there are 23000 posters, most of whom would post if they had a once in a lifetime run.

23000 days is 63 years.

How the paradox is applied and in which forum it occurs would require better research by someone who doesn't think it's a paradox [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Lori

[Gramps]

True, 40 OOTM for a winning player in SNGs is a lot more unlikely to happen than a 500 BB downswing in 15/30. Point being simply that whatever the "accepted expected downswing" for a winning player to experience from time to time, over the very long run, it will double up on you back-to-back (okay, that sounded kind of seedy).

[Gramps]

True, 40 OOTM for a winning player in SNGs is a lot more unlikely to happen than a 500 BB downswing in 15/30. Point being simply that whatever the "accepted expected downswing" for a winning player to experience from time to time, over the very long run, it will double up on you back-to-back (okay, that sounded kind of seedy). For 15/30, it's probably greater than 250 BB, and for a lot of levels of SNGs, it's probably less than 20.

[Jason Strasser]

I kinda moved over to stars to play the 5/10 and 10/20 nl cash games and HU sngs (usually 1ks). Sometimes I mix it up and play a sng on stars for 300-1k.

I kinda got really bored with sngs. I personally find nl ring game more interesting, although the action is definitely not as fast.

I moved some cash over to party though when i saw the new ring games on there, so I may play a few sngs for fun.

-Jason

[voltron87b]

There's a big difference between having a long streak with -ROI and not cashing in 40 SNGs. I would like to see the HHs of a strong player who has done this. I am 100% sure you and I would find big leaks in their game during the 40 streak.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]

Say you make the money 40% of the time. If you play a set of 40 the odds against you losing all of them are around 750,000,000:1. (1 / 0.6^40 = 750M.) For 20 it's more like 25,000:1. If you only place 30% of the time, it's 1.5M:1 against for 40 and 1250:1 for 20.

Such a streak is clearly more likely as you play more SNGs, but I'd be surprised to see anyone here lose 40 in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that just because your ITM is 40%, it doesn't mean that you're playing like a 40% ITM player right now.

Today my boss yelled at me, my truck broke down, I got into a fight with my girlfriend, my dog ran away and my friggin coffee was cold this morning. How well do you think I'll be playing tonight?? I certainly think that I have a better shot of going 40 OOTM than usual.