Forgive me for asking, but...

[UMTerp]

Tommy, I'm fairly certain that by most people's definition of "downswing", it can last multiple sessions, weeks, whatever.

I would definite the magnitude of a current "downswing" for a winning player as: how much money has been lost since his bankroll was at its highest level.

It would be rare that one's biggest downswing would occur over a single session.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm in the middle of a huge (200 BB) downswing"

Every time I read something like that, I wonder what kind of swings I've been through, and really, I have no idea, because I always get bogged down on time units, which happens eventually anytime score-keeping comes up.

What does "downswing" mean? Does it mean we win no pots at all? Or one pot per hour? Or per 100? Or is "downswing" a word that everyone has agreed to calculated by the session? So a 200BB downswing would mean no winning sessions during some period that is defined by there being no winning sessions in it. Okay, I think I see it now. And it looks like self-torture to me. But let's say we say that "downswing" is a by-the-sessions thing, well, in that case, how long a break between playing determinines the end of one session and the start of another? An hour? Two? 24?

If there is some specific need to compare something to something, then looking back at records can be a good play. Otherwise, I think it is a waste of physical and emotional energy and therefore -EV.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy,

I'm amazed that you don't understand what he means by a 200 bet downswing. Or that you think it's not important.

A downswing ignores sessions. It simply measures how many bets you've lost since your maximum profit peak. For example, if at one time during your life you were up $876K, but then over the next 6 sessions (some wins, some losses) you lost 16K. Then won 8K back over the next 4 sessions. But then loss another 15K over the next 8 sessions. Your total downswing at this point in time is 23K.

And I believe this statistic is vitally important to assessing your skill as a player. How much you can swing down is a function of both your variance and expectation. If over the past 10 years, you have never experience a downswing of over 200 bets, but now suddenly find yourself down over 300 bets, then the odds are good that something has changed in the game, and you may need to re-examine.

If you can honestly claim to have never swung down over 200 bets, then that says a lot about your skill and game selection.

In fact, since a true winrate takes so long to converge, I would argue that the maximum downward deviation may be the most important statistic to objectively assess your skill relative to your opponents.

[ggbman]

Hand 1: 3 bet and call a cap, if he has quads, theres nothing you can do.

hand 2: Call down. 3 betting here like some suggested is ridiculous, especially because you might continue to induce a bluff from a Q-10 type hand. Only raise the river if it is a J.

[Tommy Angelo]

"A downswing ignores sessions. It simply measures how many bets you've lost since your maximum profit peak."

So, losers aren't allowed to have downswings?

"And I believe this statistic is vitally important to assessing your skill as a player."

For those who believe it is vitally important to statistically assess their own skill as a player, I agree. But everyone isn't like that.

Tommy

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
"A downswing ignores sessions. It simply measures how many bets you've lost since your maximum profit peak."

So, losers aren't allowed to have downswings?

"And I believe this statistic is vitally important to assessing your skill as a player."

For those who believe it is vitally important to statistically assess their own skill as a player, I agree. But everyone isn't like that.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

For losers, their entire life is one big downswing. Yes, downswing only has meaning for winners. Losers should talk about upswings.

And if you don't objectively assess your skills, how do you know you're any good? I've met players who complain about running bad for three years, never acknowledging honestly that they are not winning players anymore.

[Tommy Angelo]

"If you can honestly claim to have never swung down over 200 bets, then that says a lot about your skill and game selection."

I don't know about the past, but I do believe that the likelihood of me having a 200BB downswing at any time in the future (meaning drop 200BB below where I am right now, or drop 200BB from any future relative high-point) is very, very close to zero. And I'd put the chances of me ever going backwards 100BB at extremely slim. But then, I also believe I am playing limit hold'em these days in a way that results in me having the lowest fluctuation of any player in the history of limit hold'em. More on that later maybe as it comes in. (I have to collect a little more data. :-) )

Tommy

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you can honestly claim to have never swung down over 200 bets, then that says a lot about your skill and game selection."

I don't know about the past, but I do believe that the likelihood of me having a 200BB downswing at any time in the future (meaning drop 200BB below where I am right now, or drop 200BB from any future relative high-point) is very, very close to zero. And I'd put the chances of me ever going backwards 100BB at extremely slim. But then, I also believe I am playing limit hold'em these days in a way that results in me having the lowest fluctuation of any player in the history of limit hold'em. More on that later maybe as it comes in. (I have to collect a little more data. :-) )

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that your edge over your opponents is huge and that you play a low variance game. Contrast that with other posters here who seem to think that 300 bet downswings are to be routinely expected. Their edges are probably razor thin and they don't even realize it.

Also, I can tell that you don't multi-table online. It is simply much more difficult to avoid 200 bet downswings when you're playing 3 tables against hyper-aggressive opponents.

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
when you're playing 3 tables against hyper-aggressive opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this can be summarized as "my egde isn't as big when I multi-table."

It not any more difficult than avoiding a 200BB downswing while playing 3 times as long against hyper-agressive opponents at one table.

so you dont think villain is ever folding to a three bet here often enough to lay down a hand like QJ or better?

my thinking was if the three bet gets him to laydown a better hand ever, it's worth it, and, if he caps, which is rare unless you're seriously beaten, well, you can check behind often times for the same price with the advantage of possible getting a better hand to fold, and, if he caps it on the turn you were beat anyways....???

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you can honestly claim to have never swung down over 200 bets, then that says a lot about your skill and game selection."

I don't know about the past, but I do believe that the likelihood of me having a 200BB downswing at any time in the future (meaning drop 200BB below where I am right now, or drop 200BB from any future relative high-point) is very, very close to zero. And I'd put the chances of me ever going backwards 100BB at extremely slim. But then, I also believe I am playing limit hold'em these days in a way that results in me having the lowest fluctuation of any player in the history of limit hold'em. More on that later maybe as it comes in. (I have to collect a little more data. :-) )

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, i think this begins to push it. I've had days where i was stuck 100 BB's and got even. Without trying to sound condenscending here Tommy, because believe me i respect you a lot, saying that it's unlikely that you will have a 100 BB downswing is more likely a factor of not having a full appreciation of the variance of limit hold em than it is to be a reasonable conclusion that you have come to.