continuing 300 Bb thread

[Ray Zee]

for those that think its boring or just math or whatever see you on the rail. nothing is straight forward in life or gambling. so--
if you were playing a slot machine that gave you a certain edge per hour or 100 hands you would find the swings associated with your edge and SD.
but poker isnt a slot machine. your edge changes all the time. it may average out to a certain amount over a set number of hands but that is not the point.
the point is you can control that edge and your Sd during your play. And the best or shall i say smarter players perceive when their edge is less for whatever reason it may be. so they quit or move to another game. or play more carefully or a different strategy which should increase their edge or lessen the chances that if they are playing a losing game, that they continue on that path. it is not the same as the slot machine.
if you just play with no regard to your surroundings and let your average edge bring you thru the high and low spots then you will indeed experience the swings a normal curve may suggest but you will over the long run extract your hourly rate. just have enough bankroll to last. and of course be good enough to realize that you may not be a winner in that game before its all gone.

[Lawrence Ng]

Ray, I just wanted to add something to this whole 300 BB downswing discussion. Prior to playing poker on a more full time basis I never even came close to a 150 BB downswing much less a 300 BB downswing. However the more hours, the more hands, the more sessions I logged within a shorter time period I noticed a significant drop in $$/hr.

It was clear that when I played on a more recreational note that I had a much higher edge and chose to remain in the games where I had the higher edge and left when I didn't. Whereas now, even if I don't have that high of an edge I have to put in the hours and as such I have a marginally diminishing rate of return on $$/hr the more hours I put in.

Lawrence

[Alexthegreat]

I would imagine that this is very good stuff to be thinking about....I don't think I think about it anywhere near enough....

Thanks!

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
for those that think its boring or just math or whatever ... your edge changes all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah this is what I was getting at in the other thread when I said that a better use of math would be a hidden markov model. There's an appropriate math for everything [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[1800GAMBLER]

I write carefully, because obviously you know more poker than i, but i find your arguements moot if math wise we can put 1.0bb/100h and 19h/100 SD into formula watch the results of a 300bb downstreak. 1bb/100h are meant to go through this.

This takes into consideration for a 2bb/100h can play worse ( to +1bb/100h) yet still be a winner [in the game] and run bad of 300bb.

FWIW, i think part 1 of this arguement is because 19bb/100h SD AND LARGER has never been experienced untill recently and part 2 the long run, is, long, human beings are unable to see long run (proof: diet, family, poker, savings).

[phish]

Ray,

While everything you say is true, there is still an uncontrollable aspect of poker that you're downplaying.

Yes, there may be times when the game is so good that your expectation is 5 bets per hour. With that win rate, it's hard to ever lose 50 bets. But those times are rare. So let's say that you see a game where your expectation will only be 1.5 bets per hour and you decide that's good enough. And throughout that game, your expectation remains 1.5 bets per hour but the game is wild enough that your standard deviation is 15 bets an hour. Now you are happy with your winrate and comfortable with the SD. But in this game, it is statistically possible for you to drop more than 200 bets (or maybe even 300 or more, I'm too lazy right now to do the math). And there's nothing you can really do about it.

Sure you should quit if your estimated win rate drops below 1.5, but I'm saying that even with a winrate you're happy with, normal "luck" can result in significant losses.

And I'd like to ask again, no so much to be nosy as to get some sense of standard to measure by, what is the most number of big bets that you have ever swung down?

From what you're written, and from everything I've heard about you, you seemed to have been one of the greatest poker players ever, without the wild gambling compulsion so common to many of the highest stakes players. And I believe you likely did have the discipline to quit bad games even when stuck and play well under all circumstances. So I would like to use your experience as a standard by which to measure reasonable maximum downswings. (Adjustment should be made for online, of course).

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
but i find your arguements moot if math wise we can put 1.0bb/100h and 19h/100 SD into formula watch the results of a 300bb downstreak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ray is trying to say is that a good player usually has a big enough edge that 300BB losing streak is unlikely (maybe that means a 2BB/100h winrate). This means a "good" player has a higher BB/100h win rate. So when the losing streak happens it because our play changed or the games got tougher, or as the math guy would say the winrate changed.

As winrates go up, risk of ruin goes down. So when we hit a long losing streak it might be we are unlucky, but it is more likely that our winrate is less or we aren't as good.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
it is statistically possible for you to drop more than 200 bets (or maybe even 300 or more, I'm too lazy right now to do the math)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ray is saying is that, in his experience, good players usually have a high enough winrate that this is unlikely. Or maybe that your optimal limit is one where you are good enough that this is unlikely.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is statistically possible for you to drop more than 200 bets (or maybe even 300 or more, I'm too lazy right now to do the math)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ray is saying is that, in his experience, good players usually have a high enough winrate that this is unlikely. Or maybe that your optimal limit is one where you are good enough that this is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ray is saying is that a good player is never to good to consider the circumstances under which he is playing. This is not about the math (alone) it is about considering your ability in the present circumstances at all times! The big problem with the whole math discussion is that it carries the assumption that you are beating the game.

[AceHigh]

This whole discussion is sort of pointless, but I think I would be foolish to have a 300BB downswing and not examine my game for flaws.