|
|
#11
12-21-2004, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 10/20 troubles
sorry to hijack the thread, but I've always wondered: suppose you are a proven winning player at a limit and you have 599 BB and then go on a 300 BB swing. since 300 is close to the most a solid winning player can swing down (excluding hyper aggressive games), then wouldn't 299 technically be enough, since mathematically it should be extremely improbable that you keep swinging down. I know probabilities only apply toward the future but this has always intrigued/confused me
|
|
#12
12-21-2004, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
16 tables of .5-1.
Here's some bankroll stuff, its not great at explaining things but confirms your understanding. Go mess around in probability, the posters are generally helpful in there. something this too
|
|
#13
12-21-2004, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
If I understand you, the conditional works the opposite. I flip a coin 1,000,000 consecutive times and it comes up heads every time. What's the probability of it being heads on the next flip? It turns out it's now identical to the probability of me flipping heads for the 1,000,000,001st time, not the other way around.
|
|
#14
12-21-2004, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
ok I think I might've finally figured this out, but I'm not sure. someone please tell me if this is right.
let's say you have a 600 BB bankroll, and for that your RoR is 1/10,000, or .0001. in order for that to happen, you have to have a 300 BB downswing, and then another 300 BB downswing (or 200 then 400, or 599 then 1, etc). let's say the RoR for a 300 BB bankroll is 1/100. the chances of losing 300, then 300 is 1/100*1/100 = 1/10,000. so even though losing 600 BB is highly unlikely, once you've lost 300 BB, you've already hit a 1/100 longshot, which is losing 300 BB. now all you have left is 300 BB. it's still unlikely you'll lose it, but all it'll take is another 1/100 longshot. Nottom's analogy that JR posted really helped me understand this conceptually
|
|
#15
12-21-2004, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
ok I think I might've finally figured this out, but I'm not sure. someone please tell me if this is right.
let's say you have a 600 BB bankroll, and for that your RoR is 1/10,000, or .0001. in order for that to happen, you have to have a 300 BB downswing, and then another 300 BB downswing (or 200 then 400, or 599 then 1, etc). let's say the RoR for a 300 BB bankroll is 1/100. the chances of losing 300, then 300 is 1/100*1/100 = 1/10,000. so even though losing 600 BB is highly unlikely, once you've lost 300 BB, you've already hit a 1/100 longshot, which is losing 300 BB. now all you have left is 300 BB. it's still unlikely you'll lose it, but all it'll take is another 1/100 longshot. Nottom's analogy that JR posted really helped me understand this conceptually
|
|
#16
12-21-2004, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
man, thats harsh - dont treat me like a fish bernie. The primary reason why I would jump 10/20 (like most others mind you) is because it is statistically looser than 10/20 and at times even looser than 5/10.
NO, its not a problem that there are fish, the problem is that they are there and I can't beat them. So what is different? Similarly if you say that 13 hours is hardly enough to determine anything, then I suppose you cant draw a conclusion of whether or not I can beat the 15/30 game. Not sure why I have to be addressing these points.
|
|
#18
12-21-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
I don't know why bernie's posts are being taken so critically lately. he's right. you're worrying after a really small sample. also, the way you stated one of your sentences was ambiguous. it could've sounded like you don't like bad players if read the wrong way.
and even if 10/20 is a tougher game than 5/10, it's twice the stakes, which I think makes it more appealing. even if a good player could only squeeze out 1 BB/100 at 10/20, that's like 2 BB/100 at 5/10, which is better than either of us are doing. I think that would be the reason to go there. you really should try the 6-max. I had to be convinced to, and I'm glad I'm playing it. it's a much easier game. lesser players than you are winning more there because the games are so soft. that was my inspiration to make the switch.
|
|
#20
12-21-2004, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10/20 troubles
[ QUOTE ]
you really should try the 6-max. I had to be convinced to, and I'm glad I'm playing it. it's a much easier game. lesser players than you are winning more there because the games are so soft. [/ QUOTE ] I hate it when people say that, because it makes the fact I'm 180BB down in the $5/10 6-max game after 25k hands seem so much worse. There are three things I know about the $5/10 6-max: 1) the games are soft 2) the swings are big 3) I suck. Guy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
