Is this variance?

[HC5831]

I'm a successful $50+5 player with a ROI of 29% over 400 tournies. For 180 of those 400 tournies I broke even. The luck finally turned around for me a week and a half ago and I am again on a tear.

You need to be reviewing your hand histories to make sure you are making the right plays. That is all that matters. Over the 180 tournies I was making the right moves, but I was having horrible luck. I checked my HH's to make sure I played the right move to be certain.

I've also played 100 games at the $10, 100 at the $20, and 300 at the $30 levels. I had a 40%+ ROI over all those levels. I had 1 break even stretch of 80 games in the 30's, but the 180 game streak was my worst by far.

You should know if you are making the right moves if you have played 5k 50's. In addition, you cost yourself a lot of money by starting over at the 10's. You should have put in $1500 and started back up in the 50's. I've taken a month break many times, and you don't lose much. It only takes a couple tournies to get back in the grouve. That being said, I think that your confidence is shot. I wouldn't reconmend playing at the 50's after this losing streak. You want to go back up on a positive note.

Finally, the 20's play a lot different than the 50's. I suspect that you have not adjusted your play enough to the lower level. I played 4 $30 tournies when I was on my 180 break even streak and I had to adjust my play conciderably. The 200 less starting chip difference alone, changes things.

HC

ps. I have not had a drop of more than 30 buys ins playing sngs.

[djj6835]

Thanks for all the replies. In response to a few of the posts... [ QUOTE ]
You should have put in $1500 and started back up in the 50's.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used the profits I cashed out to pay for school and such so I was limited as to what I could put back into my account. I also agree that the 20s play a lot different than the 50s. One thing I have noticed in the relatively small number I have played is that blind stealing is very difficult. I probably haven't won a single pot by the time we hit level 4 and I have around 700 chips left with probably around 6 players or more. This always puts me in a difficult spot, especially lately when I have been running completely card dead. The biggest problem I seem to face is that everytime I have a decent spot to steal or play a hand a few players limp in in front of me. Just to provide an example of a very common situation..
I am on the button or SB with A 10 and about 600 chips with 50 100 blinds. Obviously if it is folded to me I would push, but at the 20s it seems that is is very common to still have people limping, even this late in the game. Two or three players with stacks ranging from 900 to 1500 will often limp in front of me. I have just been treating these limpers as raises, and I muck my hand, is this a mistake?
I realize I probably have zero folding equity, but I might actually have the best hand here. I remember someon posting something a while ago talking about good SNG players dont necessarily take advantage of good hands, but good oppurtunities. This made sanse to me when I was playing the 50s. People actually folded and I could take advantage of these good oppurtunities to build my stack. I'm just not seeing many good oppurtunites at the 20s when the cards are completely cold. I must be completely missing something here. Any input would be appreciated.

[lorinda]

I call Lorinda's Paradox.

Sorry.

Lori

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
I call Lorinda's Paradox.



[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize, but I'm going to ask the dumb question here.
What exactly is your paradox?

[ZebraAss]

*GASP*

[lorinda]

[ 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 ]

Lori

[djj6835]

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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, gotcha.
I supose that paradox actually answers my intial question which was simply "can this happen to a winning player?" I understand you can't possibly determine any skill level from a bad streak, but seeing that a downswing like this is common is good to hear.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all the replies. In response to a few of the posts... [ QUOTE ]
You should have put in $1500 and started back up in the 50's.

[/ QUOTE ]
I used the profits I cashed out to pay for school and such so I was limited as to what I could put back into my account. I also agree that the 20s play a lot different than the 50s. One thing I have noticed in the relatively small number I have played is that blind stealing is very difficult. I probably haven't won a single pot by the time we hit level 4 and I have around 700 chips left with probably around 6 players or more. This always puts me in a difficult spot, especially lately when I have been running completely card dead. The biggest problem I seem to face is that everytime I have a decent spot to steal or play a hand a few players limp in in front of me. Just to provide an example of a very common situation..
I am on the button or SB with A 10 and about 600 chips with 50 100 blinds. Obviously if it is folded to me I would push, but at the 20s it seems that is is very common to still have people limping, even this late in the game. Two or three players with stacks ranging from 900 to 1500 will often limp in front of me. I have just been treating these limpers as raises, and I muck my hand, is this a mistake?
I realize I probably have zero folding equity, but I might actually have the best hand here. I remember someon posting something a while ago talking about good SNG players dont necessarily take advantage of good hands, but good oppurtunities. This made sanse to me when I was playing the 50s. People actually folded and I could take advantage of these good oppurtunities to build my stack. I'm just not seeing many good oppurtunites at the 20s when the cards are completely cold. I must be completely missing something here. Any input would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I've got this straight. You cashed out your 40-50k (from 16-19% ROI over 5000 55's) you've won in the last 2 years to pay for school, so you're too cash strapped to play higher than 22's. Ok.

I call bball904's subterfuge.

[Scuba Chuck]

OP, it is my opinion, based on your comments, that there is a greater than slight possibility that your skills are rusty. Reviewing your game and your strategy are in order. In fact, I think reviewing your game is always in order, especially during down streaks. Many a bankroll has been rebuilt on the $22s. Much can be learned about these damn games at this level.

I think it's a mistake to **hope** that this is a downswing, and not to re-evaluate your game.

Scuba
-who always goes on a bad streak every time he learns something new.

[Slim Pickens]

Asking "Is this variance?" will never get you a satisfactory answer. Here's why:

1) In order to generate a statistical confidence interval for your results over the first 5000 55's you played, we have to assume your play is equal to that of a hypothetical player, playing in an infinite universe of SnG's, whose finish distribution [1st,2nd,3rd]=[x,y,z] and whose results are randomly determined conforming to [x,y,z] over an infinite number of trials. There's huge assumptions in there. You may not be anywhere close to that hypothetical player because your skill or your opponents' skill may change over time. You may wake up with 200 fewer brain cells than you had when you went to sleep. Really, it's impossible to tell what [x,y,z] is, and the only way to derive any statistics from your previous play is to assume we know [x,y,z].

2) We'll never get everyone to agree on what constitutes a statisically significant confidence interval. Given enough time everything will happen. I'll win fifty tournaments in a row and lose a million in a row. It's just a matter of when. So what seems "significant" to you? 50%, 90%, 95%, 99%? Coupled with 1), this hardly seems worth doing.