SSHE Question : Variance and Bankroll

[redbaronat]

Hi,

I am on my third of fourth read through of Small Stakes Holdem and I have a question regarding a bankroll to use with these strategies.

In another book that I have read, the author states that a winning player needs a bankroll of about 350BB to avoid going bankrupt, and that from a statistical standpoint a player could only break even after 14,000 hours of playing.

Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this Maths stuff, and I am in fact only in learning mode at the moment. I haven't bet any real money and I am trying to "beat" the play money games on the internet, but I guess that with a gambling strategy,a players bankroll could go through quite a few sharp up and down swings.

OK: The question is how much variance is there in these strategies and how big a bankroll does a player need to avoid the so called "Risk of Ruin"?

Also, could anyone recommend a good book / website that discusses these Ideas.

Thanks very much.

[PJS]

I recommend "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" by Mason Malmuth

This book has a comprehensive discussion on bankroll and standard deviation etc.

[redbaronat]

Thanks very much,

I'll buy it and try to answer the question myself.

[That guy]

The question is how much variance is there in these strategies and how big a bankroll does a player need to avoid the so called "Risk of Ruin"?

a ton of variance. so much variance that many are convinced that the sites are rigged. seriously.

Understanding the math in detail was very useful for me and I am sure for most.

Think about rolling dice. if you play long enough, you will see some runs of results that don't really seem possible mathematically --- but they are. Same for poker. Play enough hands and not only will you take terrible beats, you will take an extended SERIES of terrible beats that just doesn't seem possible. like KK getting cracked 8 times in a row or 12 out of 13 times... or not making a flush draw 20+ straight times.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi redbaronat:

If it was possible to only break even after 14,000 hours you certainly wouldn't be much of a hold 'em player. I suspect that author hasn't read Small Stakes Hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[KeyToTheMint]

I suspect he meant 14,000 hands. This is possible. Read your
book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi redbaronat:

If it was possible to only break even after 14,000 hours you certainly wouldn't be much of a hold 'em player. I suspect that author hasn't read Small Stakes Hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Or didn't understand the material. I am a student and you would not believe how often I work with people who say "well I read it three times." I always reply with "yes but did you understand it." The answer is invariably no.

Some people need to learn to slow down, read carefully, and strive for comprehension of small chunks rather then glossing over important details and moving on for the sake of "finishing the book."

Greg

[scandal]

What the author of that statement actually says is that a good player (win rate of 1BB/hr) has to play 14,000 hours (of live play) before he's statistically guaranteed to be at least break-even. At any time before that, this player might lose money due to variance. He's definitely not saying you need to play 14,000 hours before before you break even. The author is merely pointing out that even good players can appear to be losing over a very long stretch of hands.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
I recommend "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" by Mason Malmuth

This book has a comprehensive discussion on bankroll and standard deviation etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there was a discussion about this in the probability forum a while back, where BruceZ showed that Mason's formula is slightly off, and gave a better one.

BruceZ rules hard. Seriously, he is awesome.

[redbaronat]

I agree.

when I'm tired or not concentrating properly, I will read a Two plus Two book for about 5 minutes and then realize that I haven't actually absorbed a single word.

The Two plus Two books are full of very useful information but this information is very difficult to absorb.I find I need to read the same chapter three or four times, and I still haven't absorbed it all.

In fact, I'm begining to think that a good poker player should sit an exam to prove it.

OK,OK, the real exam takes place every time you sit down against nine other "players". I suppose what I'm trying to say is: partially absorbing this information is not enough. You could learn enough to get yourself in real trouble and not understand why.

That's why I am only gambling with play money. Its embarrasing enough to lose without having to say goodbye to some hard earned moolah as well!

Best regards,

Red