|
|
#21
11-07-2004, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] busguy 
|
|
#22
11-07-2004, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more. [/ QUOTE ] I suggest rethinking this argument. Easy counterexample: say that at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down. Playing one table, the likelihood that you're down is 0.5. Playing two tables, the likelihood that they're both down is only (0.5)(0.5) = 0.25. (Extensions to more tables are straightforward.) You're therefore less likely to be simultaneously "losing" at all your tables. Similarly, the OP was also correct in saying that if you're a winning player, you're more likely to be up overall. Over the same amount of time, by playing 4 tables (for example) you're playing 4x more hands than single-tabling. Given a 1000 vs. 4000-hand sample size and a winning player, which is more likely to show a net positive outcome over the observation interval?
|
|
#23
11-07-2004, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] busguy [/ QUOTE ] If you suck, variance is not your problem. And BTW, I was 'taking the mickey' in my earlier post about leaving the table you're getting killed at. -- Peter
|
|
#24
11-07-2004, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The real secret to crushing these games of course, is to leave the table you're being killed at and just play the profitable ones. [/ QUOTE ] NO - how much you're up/down should have no bearing whatsoever on your decision to stay at a table or not. [/ QUOTE ] I suspect your humor detector needs tuning.
|
|
#25
11-07-2004, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] busguy [/ QUOTE ] No. If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table). For newbies, multi-tabling may not be the best option because you cannot focus on individual plays as much. You MUST master the ABC's and have a good grasp of the D's, E's, and F's of poker before multi-tabling. But multi-tabling does decrease the noticibilty of variance. For those who suck, no techniques (other than, of course, playing better) will help, as they will lose money period.
|
|
#26
11-07-2004, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
I still get frustrated (many gamblers feel "entitled" to the pot when they're dealt AA, and complain that it was "stolen" from them if they lose), but a couple of things have helped me (I hope) avoid tilting:
1) I think about how I handle bad beats when I'm up 50BB in an hour. It is much easier for me to smile about it when I'm doing very well for the session. Then I remind myself that it's all one long session. 2) I remind myself that NH=FU
|
|
#27
11-07-2004, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
No, I would suggest that YOU re-read (or read it for the first time thoroughly) my post.
He said: [ QUOTE ] Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] I said: [ QUOTE ] Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more. [/ QUOTE ] The key phrase hear being, "that is new (or sucks) " Then you said : [ QUOTE ] I suggest rethinking this argument. Easy counterexample: say that at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down. Playing one table, the likelihood that you're down is 0.5. Playing two tables, the likelihood that they're both down is only (0.5)(0.5) = 0.25. (Extensions to more tables are straightforward.) You're therefore less likely to be simultaneously "losing" at all your tables. [/ QUOTE ] With this, " at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down " being the key phrase to your argument. The problem with assuming this is that as a new player (or one who sucks) you are not "equally likely to be up or down ". As a winning player this may be the case but that is not who I was directing my advice towards. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] busguy
|
|
#28
11-07-2004, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No. If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table). [/ QUOTE ] Both of these are wrong. I'm not a huge statistics guy but I do not believe your simple formula is correct for calculating variance. If you normally play one table of $2/4, and move down and play two tables or $1/2 your variance will be lower . . but if you play two tables of $2/4 your variance will go UP, not down. I thought this was a pretty well known fact. For back-up see: - Serious Poker by Dan Kimberg page 178. - Internet Texas Hold-Em by Mathew Hilger page 275 Now I could have been clearer in my post and said that variance at any particluar table IS NOT effected by the variance at any other particular table. When playing two tables YOUR overall variance will be effected but as I said it will go up not down. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] busguy
|
|
#29
11-07-2004, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
No, I would suggest that YOU re-read (or read it for the first time thoroughly) my post. [/ QUOTE ] I read your post. I was addressing this thesis from your original message: [ QUOTE ] The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. [/ QUOTE ] The bolded statement is not correct. You are clearly not "just as likely" to be down if you multi-table versus if you're playing a single table. If you are a winning player, you are more likely to be up. Conversely, if you are a losing player, you're more likely to be down. If the problem is variance, which both OP and emonrad's posts assumed, then multi-tabling helps. If the problem is losing play, then obviously multi-tabling doesn't help.
|
|
#30
11-07-2004, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table). [/ QUOTE ] Both of these are wrong. I'm not a huge statistics guy but I do not believe your simple formula is correct for calculating variance. If you normally play one table of $2/4, and move down and play two tables or $1/2 your variance will be lower . . but if you play two tables of $2/4 your variance will go UP, not down. I thought this was a pretty well known fact. [/ QUOTE ] Both of your bolded statements are correct, and there is no contradiction. What you're missing is that when you multi-table, your variance per hour does go up, but so does your win rate. Overall your chances of showing a net profit go up. One way to see this is to note that statistically speaking, it doesn't matter if you play 4 tables for X time or a single table for 4X (neglecting for the moment effects of poorer reads). Consider playing 1000 hands vs. 4000 hands of single-tabling -- in which case are you more likely to be up?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
