First Notable Downswing - Beat Me Up and Advise Me...

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
What level do you play at? The lower the limit, the more wild the sings can be. A -45 BB couple of hours is not uncommon at all at low limits. At higher limits I'm sure it happens but less frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

This could not be more wrong. The swings get much larger as you move up.

[UATrewqaz]

Well I haven't playd high limits yet so I don't know, but I'd always heard that the crazier the game (alot of really really loose players at low limit) the more the variance, due to all the suck outs and stuff?

Or are you saying like at better tables you don't usually have huge edges, but are in alot of like 55/45 situations so it's not uncommon to lose a whole bunch in a row?

[La Brujita]

Swings depend a lot on aggression at the table and the mid limit games tend to be very laggy.

If you are in a low limit game with the same characteristics then swings could be as big.

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the lowest standard deviation you will find will be at a loose passive table. Not 100% sure if tight passive will be lower as I have little experience in that game type.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

Tell me I'm a pussy, and that a 45BB downswing is nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it better than I could have.

[Evan]

Stop bragging.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I run good.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, seriously, stop bragging.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I haven't playd high limits yet so I don't know, but I'd always heard that the crazier the game (alot of really really loose players at low limit) the more the variance, due to all the suck outs and stuff?

Or are you saying like at better tables you don't usually have huge edges, but are in alot of like 55/45 situations so it's not uncommon to lose a whole bunch in a row?

[/ QUOTE ]

The level of aggression is the main factor. Passive players = small swings. Generally, as the limits get higher the aggression level increases.

Also, at a higher level against better players your win rate will be smaller, so a bad run for a 1.5 bb/100 player is going to be a lot worse than a bad run for a 4 bb/100 winner. Imagine what happens to each player if they have a run of cards that puts them 3 bb/100 worse than usual.

[Blarg]

Depends whether you play live or online, too. In live play, especially on weekends, it's fairly common to have 7 or 8 people, or even all of them, seeing a flop after it's been capped preflop. I've seen this in the Commerce countless times, for hours and hours on end, at the 2/4 and 3/6 tables.

Those games effectively play like much larger games because of the investment required just to see the flop, much less last through the river, so they are very swingy. Score big, lose big, and for lots of the players, drink big.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
WOW, you lost 45 BB.

STFU you make me sick you arrogant Fck.

How long have you been playing, a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I was looking for tough love, but damn... That was really mean...

I've been playing for a couple years, but never on a regimented bankroll. I have just recently come to terms with the idea of a structured bankroll and how that pertains to what limits you choose. Before it was always throw $200 in my account, start at 3-6 and hope to run the money up. Sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldn't. It was really stupid. So how long have I been playing on my bankroll and actually tracking my progress? About two weeks.

And I wasn't trying to be arrogant. Dick.

[PokerAce]

Okay, two weeks from now, if you've lost an additional 230 BB, then that's a downswing. A single session losing 45 BB? That's nothing. Seriously. In my afternoon session today, I was down over 40 BB. Now, I'm up about 10 BB. This is over 1000 hands.

Last month, I lost 270 BB over 20k hands. Then, a week after that one, I lost another 190 BB over 10k hands.

45 BB is nothing. Average variance. Wait until you hit the big ones. Oh yeah, stop being a whiny bitch and don't take out your frustrations on the fish.

*smack* Get over it.