300BB downswings are not normal. PERIOD!

[adios]

Just thought I'd point out that ROR has nothing to do with the liklihood of having a 300 BB downswing. The determining factors as to how likely are win rate and standard deviation. Mason has repeatedly stressed over the years that the relationship between win rate and standard deviation is crucial. Max uses ROR to illustrate a point but it's not a factor in determining the liklihood of having a 300 BB downswing.

[DpR]

[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously incorrect.

The ROR is not cumulative, starting every time you cash out.

By your gorilla math, If I have 300BBs and have a 5% ROR, I then make 20 BBs and cash them out, I suddenly have a 10% ROR!??

Do you see how silly this is now?

The ROR is calculated NOT as a 1-shot deal, but as a long term player, trying to maintain a 300BB Roll.

Nice how you add your statements as fact though, and add to the general confusion of the typical reader.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, and from a guy who claims to be so well read.

[DpR]

Lestat highlights the important point - edge. Many post allude to this point but none of the post have come right out and said it. A 1BB winner is far more likely to have a 300BB downswing that a 2BB winner. The exact difference can be easily calculated. Take 10k hands, the 1 BB winner needs to have a 400BB below expectation result while the 2BB winner needs to experience a 500BB below expectation result.

Clearly people with lower win rates will think these downswings are more common. I personally have expereienced a huge difference in my 'percieved' variance from when I was playing as a 1BB winner vs a 2 BB winner.

[stevepa]

Ok, let's try to do some math (Disclaimer: I make no guarantees I do this right)

Say we have a player with a winrate of 1bb/100. We'll use the previously quoted 15bb/100 SD for full ring games. Now, we want to know the probability of a 300bb downswing (so #of100hands * observed win rate over those hands = -300)

So, starting from Z = (E - o)/(SD/sqrt(n)),
where Z = # of standard deviations away from expected
E = expected win rate
o = observed win rate
SD = standard deviation
n = # of 100 hands played
Writing out the rest isn't worth the effort, but substitute o=300/n, then set dz/dn = 0 and solve for n. Then substitute that to get z. I get that the most likely 300bb downswing occurs over ~30,000 hands with probability 1.04%.

So, for someone having played 300k hands of no-tilt, constant 1bb/100 poker, the probability of having had a 300bb downswing is ~ 1-(0.9896^10) = 10%.

Again, no guarantees that this is right.

Edit: I messed up the shorthanded calculation...Fixed now.

Also, if you're interested, for the short handed # quoted (17bb/100 SD), the same player would have a 300bb downswing over 30,000 hands about 2.08% of the time. So after 300k hands, prob of at least 1 300bb downswing = 19.0%.

Steve

[AlwaysWrong]

If you have a 300bb downswing, it is more likely that you are playing poorly than playing well and getting unlucky.

I believe the OP's point is that when someone says they are on a 300bb downswing, it probably isn't helpful to say, "Don't worry, that's normal." It's better to assume they are playing poorly and look for ways to fix their play.

[CardSharpCook]

To add another useless personal anecdote:

In 250K hands at one level I've had 2 -250BB swings. One of them was the first 4K hands played at this level. The other... I was clearly tilting in many of my sessions and thought myself to be "not in a correct state of mind". Add in a little real life problem (about a girl...), and I lost 250BB over 21K hands. Outside of that, I have lost 100BB in several sessions, and my third biggest downswing was 150BB over 12K hands of what I thought to be great poker on my part. I don't see 300BB as unreasonable, but I think Rigaletto is correct in saying we often dismiss the downswing instead of fixing the problem. However, the corralary to that is players who try to convince themselves that they are in control. That is, that they can prevent downswings by superior play.

CSC

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the real question is: if 100 winning players tell me that they had a 300BB downswing, how many of them are experiencing a normal occurence?

[/ QUOTE ]

11.5

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the real question is: if 100 winning players tell me that they had a 300BB downswing, how many of them are experiencing a normal occurence?

[/ QUOTE ]

4

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the real question is: if 100 winning players tell me that they had a 300BB downswing, how many of them are experiencing a normal occurence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the [censored] cares?! This question and the answer to it hold absolutely ZERO relevance re: statistics and 300 BB downswings. If you really think that any information pertaining to this subject can be gleaned from this, "the REAL question", you should just shut up. You've shown pretty clearly in this thread that you don't know [censored] about what you're talking about, which would be fine if you would submit that this theory of yours is just a thought in your head and not something that can be backed up by statistics.

GoT

[bcblack]

I haven't done any math but I prop full time and have experienced a crazy bad run or two. Most of my play is shorthanded/heads up. For me if I drop below 300 BB i drop down a limit. I want to have 500BB to really last at a limit. My winrate is pretty high, especially when you factor in the $30-50 an hour in pay I receive, and I still feel this is a necessary bankroll.