|
|
#53
03-29-2005, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Downswings (no hand content)
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been on tilt in a good while because I don't get frustrated anymore or lose as much anymore. It's easier to accept when you know there's nothing you can do about it. [/ QUOTE ] Most Ironic Post of the Year. 
|
|
#55
03-29-2005, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Downswings (no hand content)
Think I got one in like 70-80K hands, its from when I played 2-4 and before I started using pokertracker, but I remember it like ~150 bets, could have been 100 though.
Had somewhere around five 100 BB downswings though. I´m the luckiest player around ?
|
|
#56
03-29-2005, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Downswings (no hand content)
[ QUOTE ]
Playing poorly because you've been getting your good hands sucked out is dramatically different than saying that the poker gods are frowning on you and you need to stop playing until they are smiling again. [/ QUOTE ] You must consider saying walk away from a real bad one is the same as saying to wait for poker Gods to smile again. It's dramatically different.
|
|
#57
03-29-2005, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Downswings (no hand content)
uuff...
In the words of Slansky (butchered quote) "If you're one of the best players at the table and are still taking hard hits, do not leave. Keep playing even if you have to prop your eyes open with toothpicks. The odds will catch up." If you're on tilt, fine, leave. If your outmatched, fine, leave. Otherwise, keep playing.
|
|
#59
03-29-2005, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Downswings (no hand content)
[ QUOTE ]
If you're on tilt, fine, leave. If your outmatched, fine, leave. Otherwise, keep playing. [/ QUOTE ] I believe this 100%, but its not always easy to do.
|
|
#60
03-29-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard deviation gives us the correct answer...
You make a good point. I'm not sure poker follows a normal distribution either. Most of the stuff I've found so far assumes it, but that certainly doesn't mean it's correct.
My background before poker was card counting in blackjack and the acknowledged mathematics guru in blackjack, Don Schlesinger ("Blackjack Attack"), used a normal distribution for his calculations involving standard deviation. Now, while it's true your win/loss range per hand of blackjack is not as large as poker, it still varies substantially. For instance, you may place 1 bet, split 3 times, double on each split and end up losing or winning 8 bets. In your example of the coin toss, your expectation over 10 trials would be $5 but it's entirely possible you would win $0 or $20. Standard deviation will answer "what is the probability I will win $0 or win 20$ over 10 tosses." That seems consistent with poker. I think your concern may be with the "15BB/100" as the assumed limit hold'em standard deviation. I don't know how this number was derived, but I will try to find out.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
