Ever do this during a 'down swing' ??? - Page 5

ezinestein · #41 01-15-2005, 03:16 PM

It would work... and yes... because you can't lose forever. Problem with roulette is they put limits on the table (proof that the casinos understand you can't lose forever). Thought you would know that.

ez

KC50 · #42 01-15-2005, 03:25 PM

n/m

ezinestein · #43 01-15-2005, 04:23 PM

Hi again,

I was thinking...

Imagine Mr. Hotshot comes to this forum... says he’s played 1000 hands at Party and is up 15BB/100 hands. He says the game is easy and starts bragging about all the losers who say you can only beat the game for 2-4 BB/100.

What a butthead right?

And what does Mr. Butthead (formerly Mr. Hotshot) find when he returns?

“Hey buddy... whatever you say... don’t worry the down-swing is coming! You can’t sustain that 15BB/100 long term. 1000 hands is the short term. You will lose! If I were you I’d move down a limit... because it IS coming... etc... etc... etc...

Now, let me see if I’ve seen this correctly...

Some people believe in variance and standard deviation only as long as a player is UP too many BB/100 in a ‘thousand’ hands. These people KNOW that this player who carried 15BB/100 for 1000 hands MUST come down and level off.

But when it comes to variance and standard deviation when a player is DOWN 15BB/100 for a thousand hands... these people believe that the math no longer works?

The thing I seem to stupid to ignore is...

(And the assumption here is... that this player IS a winning player. And I don’t mean me... I mean a REAL winning player.)

Swings are real in any 50-50 game. A quarter will not alternate equally... heads... then tails... heads... then tails indefinitely. There are clumps, groupings, swings... what ever you want to call the math. We might even decide to call it variance and standard deviation.

For a ‘winning’ player Hold’em is not even a 50-50 game. There is a +EV. And like I said... for some reason I seem incapable of ignoring variance. I may not know why it exists in the universe, who created it, or what actually causes it... but I certainly can’t deny that it’s there. And not only when a player is UP... but when she’s DOWN too.

And please don’t misunderstand... when I started this post... it was simply because I was curious after I went down a large number of BB in an extremely short number of hands. It didn’t put me on tilt. I didn’t scream and yell. And I didn’t snatch my head bald. I’ve already mentioned that I play the $.50 tables... so even the biggest down-swings I’ve encountered are laughable in terms of financial loss.

But I do enjoy thinking and evaluating things. And just because I tend to do most of that thinking in the shower or while taking a crap, doesn’t make it any less interesting to me.

But, I’ll admit... after reading a few of these posts I’m thinking again. And this time I'm actually wondering... can it really only work ONE way?

Thanks for many of your responses.

Kindly,
EZ

emonrad87 · #44 01-15-2005, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why not move up to 15/30? Make your money back quicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

usfman,

What a stupid thing to say! I'm fairly certain the difference between play at .50/1 and 2/4 is much closer than .50/1 and 15/30. 15/30 would virtually be a different game whereas 2/4 would not.

Kindly,
EZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he was pointing out the silliness of your idea. It wasn't a stupid thing to say.

emonrad87 · #45 01-15-2005, 05:01 PM

No. It is conceivable that you could come off your downswing with an amazing rush. Or vice versa. But, what is most likely, which is what the other posters were referring to, is that you will slowly move back up, and, as your smaple size increases and your winnings pile up, the downswing will not be as huge as it seemed at the time, and will have no lasting effects on your bankroll.

They are saying, you are not 'due' for a huge rush. And, theoretically, a winning player's downswing could last forever (Though that is HIGHLY unlikely). The posters were using this argument to tell you why jumping limits to try to win back your downswing is a silly and bad idea.

Finally, when people tell 'Mr. Hotshot' that his rate cannot continue are not saying he is 'due' for a massive downsing in the near (or predictable) future. They are simply saying that he should not expect these results to continue. In some cases, they are also commenting on a player's style of play, saying that this play will not be winning in the long term.

MicroBob · #46 01-15-2005, 05:10 PM

If I knew when I was going to be "due" for a win then I would just jump right up to the 100/200 game for a few hands...and then when I was "due" to lose because of the natural swings and ebb-and-flow, etc...I would just go straight back down to the .01/.02 games....unless you think I can ride out the losing streak at the play-money tables, I'm not sure if these count or not.

Maybe I can just not play at all for a few hours....and skip the losing hands altogether. Then, when my karmic-cosmic-spidey-powers I'm "due" to win again I just hop right back into the 100/200 games.

Seems like a good idea to me. I'm only going to play when I'm "due" to win...and I'll just avoid the losing altogether by not playing at all during those times that I WOULD have lost.
Geez, why wasn't I doing this before? I could be a zillion-aire by now. No worries....I've still got plenty of time to make my riches with this system.

ezinestein · #47 01-15-2005, 05:15 PM

lol

I don't recall mentioning 'being due'. Nor 'Karma'. Nor a 'system'. These are things you are offering.

My questions were about the math. The rest is being added by you. And don't get me wrong... you are allowed to distort it as completely as you like. Certainly exploring the math can't be a silly thing right?

Perhaps once a person's understanding is Absolutely Complete... such as yourself... then there is no need for further questioning.

Trying to shut down my questioning may serve you somehow... but it certainly doesn't serve me.

Your post somewhat reminds me of the “Charles H. Duell Myth”.

Rumor has it...

That Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents, in 1899, resigned and recommended that the Patent Office be closed because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented had already been invented!

Cheers,
EZ

scotty34 · #48 01-15-2005, 05:17 PM

This would make sense. I've played 2/4 at B&M quite a few times, and had it not been for reading 2+2, that is likely the level I would have started at when I begin playing on the internet.

pr0crastin8r · #49 01-15-2005, 08:59 PM

I always do this and joke about it with my friends how horrible of an idea it is. You're really going to just dig yourself deeper if you don't magically come out of the downswing... but yeah, it has worked for me the three times i've tried it [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) But probably a really bad idea... Very compulsive gambler-ish