|
|
#21
04-18-2005, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
a) how much they lose on their losing sessions b) whether they let it change their play on present or future sessions c) whether they look back at these sessions to analyze and determine if they could have lost less [/ QUOTE ] Well, a) I lost 49BB during this one, but that didn't really disturb me too much. I had made some money earlier on a 1/2 table and I broke even on 2 other .5/1 table I was playing about the same time. And I don't agree with c). That seems to me to encourage results-oriented thinking and weak play. This wasn't 'I had a losing session because I wasn't check-raising.' The cards were plain and simple against me. I don't even want to post examples because then I'd get the bad-beat police on me. It wasn't dead cards... at least not in my hand. I had plenty of hands to play. The board just dodged my hands, that's all. KO 
|
|
#22
04-18-2005, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
Well, a) I lost 49BB during this one, but that didn't really disturb me too much. I had made some money earlier on a 1/2 table and I broke even on 2 other .5/1 table I was playing about the same time. [/ QUOTE ] Don't concern yourself with what money you won on other tables at the same time. Each hand is indepedent. [ QUOTE ] And I don't agree with c). That seems to me to encourage results-oriented thinking and weak play. [/ QUOTE ] This isn't what I meant at all. I'm not saying that you should be looking for your bad beats. Bad beats are bad beats... nothing you can do about them. What I am saying is that you should be looking for cases where you could have protected your hand better or places where you maybe could have lost fewer bets by better reading or whatever. You'll learn a lot more from these sessions about how to improve your play simply because a lot more close decisions come up in these sessions. [ QUOTE ] The board just dodged my hands, that's all. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure the main reason for your loss was your bad beats, the board missing you etc. I'm just saying "could you have played these hands better"? There's a lot more potential material for learning how to improve your play on your losing sessions than on your winning sessions.
|
|
#23
04-18-2005, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
I didn't realize 115 hands was a session...
get thee to a bankroll!
|
|
#24
04-18-2005, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize 115 hands was a session... get thee to a bankroll! [/ QUOTE ] Well, okay, it was 1 table out of a session. It was a 'PokerTracker' session, which is time at one table. I actually played about 400 hands last night at various tables (and 2 different limits). KO
|
|
#26
04-18-2005, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB? John [/ QUOTE ] I hope your posts say not to do this.
|
|
#27
04-18-2005, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB? John [/ QUOTE ] I hope your posts say not to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. But I don't advocate it for everyone either. It's just something I do that I feel works for me. I would have saved 39BB on that table of King's while still winning on the other tables. Didn't mean to reopen that argument here I was just curious if King had ever considered doing something similar; not necessarily at 10BB though.
|
|
#28
04-18-2005, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB? John [/ QUOTE ] I hope your posts say not to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. But I don't advocate it for everyone either. It's just something I do that I feel works for me. I would have saved 39BB on that table of King's while still winning on the other tables. Didn't mean to reopen that argument here I was just curious if King had ever considered doing something similar; not necessarily at 10BB though. [/ QUOTE ] You shouldn't advocate it for anybody. Bad enough that you do it yourself but don't go giving other players bad ideas like this. You're going against standard deviation here, and standard deviation is your friend, for two reasons. It enables losers to win in the short term, (and thus keeps them in the game),which naturally means that sometimes the winners will lose. Plus, if you're playing optimal poker your standard deviation will be higher as you're taking more risks attempting to squeeze the maximum profit out of marginal situations. But in the LONG RUN this is good for you. Mason Malmuth says that a good player using advanced poker theory will have over 48% losing sessions. The winning sessions more than make up for this. Now, how do you know if you drop 10BB in the first half hour that that session wasn't going to be a huge one for you?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
