Schneids Post on Taking Shots

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post from Scheids. I've "ground out" a roll over the last 1.5 years big enough to sit reasonably comfortably in the PP 1-2 as my main game for a year or two.

However, I realize that my edge in the 1-2, if I play my absolute best at all possible times, is quite small. The $5 rake-back-less rake also contributes to the difficulties. As much as I hate to admit it, I know that I am somewhere between a small favorite, break-even, or small dog in the 1-2.

I have had to realize that I am better off continuing to grind it out at the lower limits. I made my $ that way, and there is no good reason to change at this point. I know I can at least hold my own in higher-limit games, and I will have to live with that knowledge. I just dont want to put my hard-earned bankroll at risk of suffering huge swings.

For sure, if the 1-2 or 50-100 looks overly weak on a given day, I'll jump in. I just don't want to grind it out day after day with those regulars, and risk my roll withering away.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to be ashamed of there man, at least you can evaluate what the best decision is for you without getting into ego contest. Those games look very tough, and i still havent decided if a typical lineup in the 50 can be more profitable than the 30 game. Now that there are 25 30 games again, that is probably where the money is at for most ppl.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post from Scheids. I've "ground out" a roll over the last 1.5 years big enough to sit reasonably comfortably in the PP 1-2 as my main game for a year or two.

However, I realize that my edge in the 1-2, if I play my absolute best at all possible times, is quite small. The $5 rake-back-less rake also contributes to the difficulties. As much as I hate to admit it, I know that I am somewhere between a small favorite, break-even, or small dog in the 1-2.

I have had to realize that I am better off continuing to grind it out at the lower limits. I made my $ that way, and there is no good reason to change at this point. I know I can at least hold my own in higher-limit games, and I will have to live with that knowledge. I just dont want to put my hard-earned bankroll at risk of suffering huge swings.

For sure, if the 1-2 or 50-100 looks overly weak on a given day, I'll jump in. I just don't want to grind it out day after day with those regulars, and risk my roll withering away.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

great post, and a lot more people would do better taking this advice than schneids' advice, even though both are good. it's all about who you are

[MicroBob]

BTW - just wanted to mention that clicking on ggbman's linked post/essay on bankroll management is a good idea too.

he has a lot of good ideas in there (half-tempted to copy and paste it in this thread just to make sure that more of you guys see it).


The original post by schneids developed from a poster in the zoo who posted a bad-beat 'whine' that he had just dropped $12k on the 75/150 tables...and my continued insistence that an 80BB drop wasn't really a big deal...and if losing 80BB's was so painful to him that he felt the need to post about it then he probably shouldn't have been playing the 75/150 game in the first place.


Who'd have thought that a really BAD whine-post/thread would develop into an interesting conversation on bankroll management including a really good post from schneids, a reminder of ggbman's essay, and now this thread in the HUSH forum?



I don't really think my bankroll management skills are THAT outstanding. I take some chances...other times I'm a bit conversative.
but I do acknowledge that I'm far better than most 'normal' individuals at this.
So I'll rate my bankroll-management as 'pretty good'.
I believe I am one of many players who prove that you don't have to be that great a player to make adequate money as long as you have adequate bankroll discipline.

In fact, I think it's more important than your actual card-playing ability.
For example, there are MANY players out there who can outplay me 7 days a week who are flat-broke.

I really don't think this is a matter of 'bad luck'. Everybody has bad luck.
It's simply bad money-management.

If you were +$100k at one point...then it's your own damn fault that you didn't step down in limits when you got down to your last $50k or $20k.

[tizim]

This post reminded me of something I was thinking about a while ago. It's like a paradox to me because I don't think it should work, but I can't find any holes in the idea. Consider the following scenario:

Let's say my main game is .5/1, but I have the bankroll for 50/100 and that I'm a winner in all these games. So I'm playing .5/1 and I drop $20, which pisses me off. I then decide to play some 2/4 because I can make that $20 back in 1 pot at 2/4. I then drop another $40 at 2/4, so I move up to 5/10 because I can make $60 back in 1 5/10 pot...

The bottom line is that whenever I take a loss at a certain limit, I move up because I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games. If this worked, I could essentially never have a losing day (unless I run unbelievably bad). There has to be something wrong with this plan though-- can someone explain the holes in my logic?

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
This post reminded me of something I was thinking about a while ago. It's like a paradox to me because I don't think it should work, but I can't find any holes in the idea. Consider the following scenario:

Let's say my main game is .5/1, but I have the bankroll for 50/100 and that I'm a winner in all these games. So I'm playing .5/1 and I drop $20, which pisses me off. I then decide to play some 2/4 because I can make that $20 back in 1 pot at 2/4. I then drop another $40 at 2/4, so I move up to 5/10 because I can make $60 back in 1 5/10 pot...

The bottom line is that whenever I take a loss at a certain limit, I move up because I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games. If this worked, I could essentially never have a losing day (unless I run unbelievably bad). There has to be something wrong with this plan though-- can someone explain the holes in my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
can someone explain the holes in my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is your hole:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not guaranteed a win at any point. If you are equally skilled at all levels, (not likely, as someone else pointed out) you may just have a bad run and lose your entire roll before you get that next win.

[tizim]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll use the blackjack example. So you bet $20, then lose, then bet $40 (to make back the $20 you lost), lose again, then bet $80 and lose, then $160 and lose, then $320 and lose, and so on. I understand that each bet is -EV, but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually, you'll back even.

I must be really stupid or something because this concept is extremely perplexing to me.

[Dex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll use the blackjack example. So you bet $20, then lose, then bet $40 (to make back the $20 you lost), lose again, then bet $80 and lose, then $160 and lose, then $320 and lose, and so on. I understand that each bet is -EV, but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually, you'll back even.

I must be really stupid or something because this concept is extremely perplexing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not have an infinite bankroll. You will eventually hit a string of losses that will wipe out your entire bankroll.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the basic error in thinking associated with progressive betting...the EV remains the same either way, most of the time you will win 2 dollars or whatever, but the one time that variance kicks you in the ass (which will happen (52/100)^n of the time for a 48/52 coinflip) you will lose your entire bankroll. everyone says "you will win eventually" because they can't conceptualize losing a coinflip 10 or 15 times in a row, but it can and does happen.

do a google search to learn more, but trust me your EV is unchanged by bet size unless you are varying your betting with additional information (like counting cards in blackjack). Boo ya, non-self weighting strategies...

[ggbman]

What he said.