-722BBs over ~90k hands(LC)

[Spicymoose]

Stats seem generally ok. If you don't care about the money, then I guess moving down doesn't do anything to help, but I think everyone cares about money. I know your goal is to improve as best as possible, but this necessarily mean just playing at higher limits. You can learn just as much, or even possibly more playing at lower limits, just as long as you are constantly thinking about your plays. The only difference in playing 5/10 vs 3/6 is that players on average play differently at 5/10. But, as you should have noticed, any random 5/10 game will have a variety of players, and some of those players will be nearly identical to some of the 3/6 players. The only difference is that you in general have tougher oppponents, but you need to learn how to play against each specific opponent, rather then the general bunch.

If your goal is to improve as fast as possible, I think this would best be done by posting far more than you do. I am currently trying to do this, but it is still hard to post as much as I should. Simply playing a higher limit will not improve your play.

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is postflop.


[/ QUOTE ]
How many tables?

[DCWGaming]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My problem is postflop.


[/ QUOTE ]
How many tables?

[/ QUOTE ]
3

I edited my OP, there was a 2 week period where I played 1 table, and then 2 tables with 0 distractions.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]

Dude, you're hemorrhaging in that sb (the bb isn't great but nothing like that sb)!


[/ QUOTE ]

He only has about 4k hands from the SB. This is the problem with posting a small sample of hands, and then analyzing an aspect of the game that uses an even smaller sample.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
The first 20k sound like a rush and the last 70k are indicative of actual play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement makes no sense at all. Why would you divide batches of hands up based on results?

[mtdoak]

-44 BBs over 90k hands looks like a break even player to me. Did you start at 3/6 6 max or did you just jump into 5/10 6 max? The swings can be nasty, my guess is what happened is as the swing did not correct itself right away, your play started to detoriate and it isn't showing up in the stats. Your confidence is (understandably) shot and you should move down to rebuild both your roll and your confidence. Take a break, reread some books that have helped you in the past, play some SOFT games (like 2/4 full, for example), get back to the basics, and work yourself backup.

[Alobar]

I know an awesome player who has over a 700BB downswing, so I dont think it automatically implies you are a loser.

However, if I was running that bad, I know damn well it would be affecting my play. Id drop down some limits and built up some confidence

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
I know an awesome player who has over a 700BB downswing, so I dont think it automatically implies you are a loser.

However, if I was running that bad, I know damn well it would be affecting my play. Id drop down some limits and built up some confidence

[/ QUOTE ]

A 700 BB downswing can happen to anyone at any time, and sure enough, if someone plays enough hands, it MUST happen. But, a 700 BB downswing after playing only 110k hands is extremely unlike for a winning player.

On the other hand, if you know 10 good winning players who each have played 300k hands, it is somewhat likely that one of them will experience a 700 BB downswing.

[Surfbullet]

Hey DCW,

While opening up preflop intellectually can sound promising, it's probably not the best idea at this point, especially if you feel your postflop game needs some work...those extra hands are all very marginally +EV, and may actually be -EV given the size of the rake at 10/20 and below. Additionally, they will increase your variance significantly, which is also something you should not seek at this point.

I'd recommend tightening back up to your previous style, and really focus on making the correct decisions postflop. Focus on hand-reading in heads-up and 3way pots. Emphasize maximizing your EV by hand-protection and equity analyses in multiway pots. These are general ideas but will help keep you thinking in the correct manner. Post troublesome hands, we'll see what we can find.

Good luck. I've been busy moving but i'll be available probably sunday - let me know.

Surf

[fyodor]

This is a post from GoT:

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm getting questions now about this so I figured I'd specify. I ran 100 samples of 100k hands each for a 1.80 wr, 16.90 sd player (or 100 different players with the exact same true winrate and sd under the circumstances). Note this test would assume winrate is constant per 100 hands, i.e. no changing game conditions, no tilting, etc. Out of the 100, the highest wr was 3.47 and the lowest was 0.42, with the total wr over the 10 million hands being 1.95, meaning the player(s) was/were running hot for these 10M hands, and not just by a little, yet still one of these samples was as low as 0.42 bb/100.

On the subject of sample size, obviously 100 trials is far too few to come to any reliable conclusions. But these results made me think of variance and the long run in LHE quite differently. If two people playing the same game were to present to me their last 100k hands and one was earning 0.5 bb/100 and the other was earning 3.5 bb/100, who would I think was the better player? Obv, the 3.5 guy. But how much doubt would there be in my mind as to whether he was better or not? Apparently there should be room for some. Winrates just do not converge NECESSARILY until millions and millions of hands. For some they will, sure. Some of us will run close to our true earn for our lifetimes and will rarely or never venture to the upper amplitude of our SD. Others will run hotter than our true earn lifetime; some a little and some A LOT. Same goes with running cold. Some of us will find the very outer bounds of what our SD is capable of, and others won't even get close.

So what determines who among us will get rich and who stays stagnant or drops down? Better players will have a better chance at success of course, and success on a greater scale. But even a WCP could very conceivably end up having to drop down to lower limits while a mediocre player may rise to the big games, maybe never even realizing they're as good as they truly are. It might not even be a stretch to say this HAS happened.

So poker skills being equal, what determines who becomes and millionaire and who keeps playing 15/30? I don't know. QM? Sure. Maybe God DOES play dice with poker, I don't know. What I do know is that this (along with continuing to learn and appreciate Zen philosophies) has helped me come to realize that results, even on an extremely broad or lengthy scale, should be meaningless to me. And I don't mean meaningless in the sense of how I view the game now. I mean in the sense of how I feel I should STRIVE to view the game. We as a group have trained ourselves to not care about 200 bet swings, about 20k hand down periods. None of that comes naturally of course, but as we learned more and more about the nature of LHE we came to accept those things as just part of the package and we learned to deal with it. In the same way, I'm attempting to continually make myself immune to results, period. Not just short-term, but long-term as well. I want to approach this game theoretically and conceptually, without the hint of any wins or losses clouding my judgement. Ridding my conscious from any and all results, period; that is the goal. I'm not there yet by a long shot, but given what I think I know about this game and the philosophy and approach I feel is best for me, my goal is to be constantly progressing toward that state.

GoT


[/ QUOTE ]

Your winrate for the first 20k is completey meaningless. Winning at 3+bb/100 over a sample that small is possible for just about anyone. Far more significant is the -.8/100 over the last 90k. Add them together and you are a breakeven player. Or you could be a 1bb/100 player running bad. Or you could be a -1bb/100 player who just ran good for 20k.

Whatever the case, it does not look like you should be playing more than 2 tables of 5/10 at a time for the forseeable future.