Losing Streaks - Page 2

afk · #11 03-09-2004, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what you call a streak - I just went through a 110 Big Bet streak in 10 hours. Not even bad beats - just never hitting and looking at my hands very few mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, glad I'm not the only one. Mind you, I've made some mistakes and my play isn't perfect but I haven't seen much in the way of starting hands. Hopefully my 30BB win today will kick me out of it.

Webster · #12 03-09-2004, 10:25 PM

I read a book called Killer Online Poker that really turned my head. It said the wame thing that 2+2ers say BUT for some reason it hit home.

Bad beats by bad players happen to EVERYBODY - it really does. When you have a streak of poker where the most hidious players are beating you when you FINALLY get cards just remember it it REALLY does happen to everybody.

Its the law of averages. The difference between good players and bad is that the good players just shake their head and move on - the bad get angry and take it personally.

Remember that these players are not playing bad on purpose - they honestly do not know how to play. They are not TRYING to play badly. YUP - they just killed your perfect hand but would you rather have a bunch of GOOD players at your table?

JohnWilliam · #13 03-10-2004, 12:05 PM

GuyOnTilt · #14 03-11-2004, 11:13 AM

For the first 2 weeks of February, I was down over 200 BB's after 167 table hours online. I got even over the next 125 table hours. So that's 292 table hours of break even play, and if online deals ~twice as fast as B&M, then that's about 600 hours B&M of break even play. My win-rate at those table playing 3 at once like I was during that stretch is 1.46 BB/hr/table, so I was running quite cold for those "600 hours." That's my worst stretch so far, and I haven't even been playing poker for a year. I can definitely see a solid player running cold for 1400 hours.

GoT

Webster · #15 03-12-2004, 01:29 AM

Well - I hate to say it but playing 3 tables at once will really kill you in a bad streak. A person plays WAY WAY better at one table and I don't think the 1400 hour thing is accurate.

GuyOnTilt · #16 03-12-2004, 07:12 AM

Well - I hate to say it but playing 3 tables at once will really kill you in a bad streak. A person plays WAY WAY better at one table...

Agreed. My winrate for 2 tables is 1.74 BB/hr/table, which is something like 22% higher than for 3 tables. I'm not sure what my winrate is for one table at those limits, 'cause I haven't logged very many hours at all playing a sole table. But my overall hourly rate is slightly higher playing 3 tables than 2, so that's what I do.

...and I don't think the 1400 hour thing is accurate.

I don't see what that has to do with how many tables you play. It's not like my winrate playing 3 tables is low or anything...I think a lot of people underestimate how much short-term luck and variance there really is in this game. And yes, 1400 hours is pretty short-term for a full-time poker player.

GoT

arfsananto · #17 03-12-2004, 08:48 AM

Killer Online Poker is by the same guy that wrote Killer Poker, John Vorhous, right? Have you read Killer Poker, and if so, can you compare/contrast the two?
I just ordered Killer Poker, and have been wondering about the online version.
Thanks for any input.

MarkD · #18 03-12-2004, 05:53 PM

Your SD playing 3 tables is probably higher though and the time consider is proportional to the square of sd / wr so as that ratio increases the time of a losing streak could increase very fast.

I doubt you have anything to worry about though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Nottom · #19 03-13-2004, 11:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your SD playing 3 tables is probably higher though and the time consider is proportional to the square of sd / wr so as that ratio increases the time of a losing streak could increase very fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. On an hourly basis a person playing 3 tables will have a high hourly rate and a somewhat high (but low compared to his winrate) SD compared to a 1 table player. As a result the multitable player will be less likely to go on an extended losing streak in terms of hours simply because a 40 hour losing streak for a 3-table player would be like a 1 table player losing for 120 hours or a live player losing for 200+ hours.

Now becasue of degradation in play its possible for a 3-table player to maybe see more 10000 hand losing streaks for example, but it would take him significantly less time to work his way out of that hole because he plays more hands/hour.

Sorry for the rantyness of the response but i hop eyou get the idea.