BR disagreement/fallacy

One more thought, say 300BB is the min. to never go broke. Now, before moving up in stakes say from 5/10 to 10/20 requires twice the BR. Then on the flip side if we just start out with our 300BB at a 5/10 in the big blind and fold, now we have 299BB and need to drop down in stakes...that is BS but that what is being implied by moving down in any case.

Opps, 299.5BB

[EStreet20]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may be rare, but there are truly great holdem players (not to mention us shitty ones [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) who have had 500 BB downswings.

Good luck,
Matt

[Oblivious]

Surely you arent arguing that there is no such thing as a 500bb downswing for winning players.

If we assume the probability distribution for streaks to be gaussian (a bell curve), we would see that the more extreme winning or losing streaks would be less probable. This probability distribution would be defined for all streaks, no matter how large. So if you play long enough, you will eventually encounter a losing streak of 500bb, 1000bb, and even 10000bb. Mind you, "long enough" might require hundreds of thousands of years... most of our careers dont last that long.

The fact that you brought up the qualification of "winning player" is strange to me. Even losing players have very large rushes upward. I agree with you that a winning player, starting with 500bb, would most likely never go broke if his earnings were added to his bankroll. This isnt the case for a losing player. But if a winning player starts a career with 500bb, and withdrawls money such that his bankroll is never over 500bb, he will eventually go broke provided his career is long enough.

Somewhere, the idea of convergence should be included in this argument, but Ive become a bit rusty since my course in Analysis.

[MicroBob]

I know it's more common in 6-max...but that's what I've been playing these days.

In the HUSH forum there was a thread where SEVERAL players posted their 300BB down-swings (and some were much larger than this).

Most were established winners.

Sthief said almost exactly what I was going to say.

If you have a 2% chance of a 300BB down-swing...then there is also a chance of catching those down-swings back to back.

It's exactly the same as losing to a 1-outer on consecutive hands.
If you play enough it will happen eventually.


Also - after the first 200-300BB's of your bankroll vanish you are CORRECT that you need to consider whether you are a winning player in the first place.
It is a big blow to one's confidence.
No matter how much you KNOW that such downswings CAN and WILL happen it also should occur to you that you are NOT playing winning poker anymore and that you have somehow developed some leaks into your game or just aren't concentrating appropraitely.

Stepping back in limits is an okay way to regain one's confidence, re-evaluate their game, AND protect one's bankroll when you start to get a little bit shorter than you are comfortable with.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]


In the HUSH forum there was a thread where SEVERAL players posted their 300BB down-swings (and some were much larger than this).

Most were established winners.


[/ QUOTE ]

"most" is a bit much. True a 300bb swing does happen with more frequency at 6max and such, there were really only 2-3 posters in that thread (from what I remember) where I was like 'whoa, thats heavy.' I remember two being Stheifs and Evans graphs (GoT if he posted in that one is an honorable mention)...anyway what Im trying to say, at least half that posted it wasnt suprising to see most of those results...its more than what I think of their play too (which was a decent part of it) but also to how they react to being on a downswing...etc.

Tstone and I were talking about this a while back on IRC and most of those results were expected. Still the 3 mentioned were the ones that made me go WTF.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you arent arguing that there is no such thing as a 500bb downswing for winning players.


Actually I was, sorry I assumed this. With that said, how in the world can anyone be a winning player then with that kind of losing streak(s)???


If we assume the probability distribution for streaks to be gaussian (a bell curve), we would see that the more extreme winning or losing streaks would be less probable. This probability distribution would be defined for all streaks, no matter how large. So if you play long enough, you will eventually encounter a losing streak of 500bb, 1000bb, and even 10000bb. Mind you, "long enough" might require hundreds of thousands of years... most of our careers dont last that long.


Now we're getting deep.


The fact that you brought up the qualification of "winning player" is strange to me. Even losing players have very large rushes upward. I agree with you that a winning player, starting with 500bb, would most likely never go broke if his earnings were added to his bankroll. This isnt the case for a losing player. But if a winning player starts a career with 500bb, and withdrawls money such that his bankroll is never over 500bb, he will eventually go broke provided his career is long enough.


Why is it strange? I made the statement to fit the BR for never going broke. If your comfortable at a level and making good money, why not cash out down to your BR limit? Isn't that the whole idea? I'm not saying your BR is your life savings, sorry if you thought that.


Somewhere, the idea of convergence should be included in this argument, but Ive become a bit rusty since my course in Analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SCfuji]

you dont know how much of me wishes you were right.

[john kane]

the original poster has exactly the same thoughts as me. i agree with him.

you do not have 500BB if you are never going to use 300BB at the same level. you have 200BB at say 10-20 and 600BB at 5-10. That is the way you should be viewing your bankroll if you are going to move down limits when you lose 200BB of your 500BB. you are never going to be playing with the remaining 300BB at 10-20 so it is pointless viewing it as such.
Instead you should always be viewing your current level as risk money (in this example 200BB at 10-20) and if you lose it you can then drop down to 600BB at 5-10.

if you are saying you are going to move down whenever you lose a set amount, you do not have a bankroll, merely you are slowing the swings you experience.

for example, you could easily have a bankroll of $200 and play 2-4, ie 50BB. if you drop to $100 you move down to $1-2, if you drop again to $50 you play at $0.50-$1.

here you are playing with a 50BB bankroll and have a 0% risk of ruin as you will always have a bankroll. The reason for having such a large bankroll say 500BB is so you dont have to move down limits and constantly have swings, you want to be playing a set limit until you have won enough to move up.

players should either have a 50BB limit or a 1000BB limit imo. the 50BB bankroll means you are constantly going up and down, but have a 0% risk of ruin, the 1000BB means you never have to move down limit and can slowly progress.

[AustinDoug]

Was this bankroll strategy what led to the following post:

[ QUOTE ]
Since I'm taking a well needed break from playing poker, I am watching instead. What table limits are you watching and what are you looking for in the play of hands that might help your game?


[/ QUOTE ]