A quick note about "rareness" of bets

[Ed Miller]

I don't plan to address (or read) the whole long thread. I did want to discuss this idea, though:

VERY RARE, VERY SLIM +EV SITUATIONS ARE NOT PROFITABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIKELYHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THEM ENOUGH TIMES DURING OUR POKER LIFETIMES FOR THE NUMBERS TO NORMALIZE.

This notion is 100% erroneous. How often you are offered a bet does not determine in any way whether it is profitable or not.

To prove this to yourself, you can view any set of bets as a single bet with many possible outcomes. For instance, say you flip a coin three times. For each time it comes heads, you win $1. Each time it comes tails, you lose a $1.

Instead of looking at it as three different bets, you can view it as a single bet with eight possible outcomes. That is, if it comes HHH, you win $3. HHT, and you win $1. Etc. There is no difference in "profitability" whether you view it as a series of N independent "common" bets, or one "rare" bet with 2^N possible outcomes.

Likewise, your bankroll doesn't care what game you are playing, or what situation came up. All it cares is that you made a bet with an EV of +$X/wager with a std. dev. of $Y/wager. It doesn't care if that wager was made at faro or tiddle-e-winks.

Hell, if it were true that "rareness" makes bets unprofitable, then no one would ever win at sports betting. After all, each game is completely unique. You will NEVER have another opportunity to bet on last week's Dolphins game.

Finally, you guys are way too worried in general about the relationship between EV and variance in limit poker. While it is extremely important that you avoid overbetting your bankroll on thin edges in sports, blackjack, or the stock market, you just don't have to worry about it at limit poker (obviously, provided you have a bankroll of a few hundred bets). As has been pointed out, the opportunity to make these super thin wagers just doesn't come up often enough to worry about it. The large majority of you guys will end up doing much better in the long run if you simply IGNORE THE WHOLE THING and make any play if you think it is +EV. Again, this recommendation is only for playing limit poker with a bankroll of several hundred bets. (If you want to learn more about the relationship between EV, variance, and bankroll, google 'Kelly Criterion'.)

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

If you aren't having negative swings that large, then what are you worried about?

[bonanz]

THE CHAMP IS HERE!

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.


[/ QUOTE ]

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

This is a serious question, not a jab at you or either one?

My guess is I'm sure they made some, as we all do, but I really wonder if they were making more than normal or just a horrible string of luck.

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys find yourself having negative swings

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but the phrasing would imply to me that he means multiple, or regularly.

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey Ed,

If you guys find yourself having negative swings of 400 or more bets it ISN'T because you are "pushing too many thin edges." It's because you don't play that well in general. You are making lots of -EV mistakes.

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention. The worst I've experienced so far is -300 BB's, though I fully expect to have a 400 big bet loss if game conditions stay the same. I've dropped over 80 BB's in 30 minutes in that game; that's just the way it is. It doesn't take "lots of -EV mistakes" to do.

BTW, El Diablo has also gone through a 400 BB downswing too.

GoT

[Ed Miller]

My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

1. They are playing in games that are generally tougher and more aggressive than the micro and small games the target audience of my post is playing. I would be very surprised if either of those guys would experience a 400 bet downswing in the $1-$2 games most of you guys are playing. FWIW, I've never played with 1800, but I have played with GuyOnTilt, and he is a very good player.

2. They may play a lot of shorthanded games. The rules for shorthanded are a little different because you end up in marginal situations a whole lot more frequently.

Here's my real point. Poker players tend to think they "know better." They've played a few years, they've won a few bucks, and they start to think that their way is the right way. When someone comes and tells them that actually they have been misplaying certain situations, the natural response is, "No I haven't."

On this forum, people generally don't say, "Ed, you're wrong." Instead, they say, "Well, Ed's plays are really OPTIONAL. They are only for those who want to get every last cent. I'm happy with my 95% optimal strategy, and, hey, this way I won't have downswings that are as bad."

In other words, they use these EV/variance arguments as a JUSTIFICATION for making mistakes. They say to themselves, "It's not a mistake, it's just a choice I make."

Well, there are some plays that can be made for EV/variance reasons. David discusses these in essays in some of his books. For instance, he recommends that if you are "taking a shot" at a juicy high-limit game that you tighten up some preflop. In a spot where you might play K6s on the button, don't play it if you are deliberately playing higher than your bankroll can handle.

But for the most part, this EV/variance argument is employed when someone is making an error and simply doesn't want to change/doesn't quite believe that he's wrong.

Most of you guys play small anyway. You play $0.50-$1, $1-2, $2-$4, etc. If you lose a few hundred bets, who cares? Spend an afternoon mowing lawns and you'll have a brand new bankroll. Use this time that you are playing small to learn to play CORRECTLY. Don't make excuses. Force yourself to make some plays that are uncomfortable for you. Try them again. Get some experience.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being nit-picky. If I put it in the book.. particularly if I backed it up with an example.. it's IMPORTANT. Make sure you absolutely 100% understand a concept before you start selectively ignoring it. Don't just dismiss it as "too high variance."

BTW, this is why I included the "Don't alter these recommendations for your own reasons. Chances are you'll be wrong and it will cost you money," line. It's not because I think I'm never wrong.

A statement like that doesn't apply to someone who understands poker better than I do like Roy Cooke... or the many mid-limit posters on this site like snakehead, Gabe, El Diablo, Clarkmeister, etc.

It's directed at the guy who has played for a few years, won a few bucks, and thinks that he generally plays a near-perfect game. Most of those guys make tons of mistakes... and they might actually get better if they'd just listen. But a lot of those guys will read the book, see a lot of stuff that doesn't jive with how they play, and say, "That Miller guy. He's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about." My statement was just a little extra warning not to leave the book with that opinion.

[Ed Miller]

You're pretty much wrong on this one. Like Kick already mentioned, there are players on these boards who are beating a game for over 3bb/100 (I assume Gambler is, though I don't know for certain) who have gone through the type of downswings you mention.

The 400 number isn't the important point. Maybe I should have said 500 instead. My point is that if you want to make a lot of money playing poker, you just have to play the "high-variance" style. If you "I want to keep my variance down" yourself all the time, your winrate will drop a ton.

[Ulysses]

Two things.

1) I've posted a number of times re: how much people underestimate the swings in these games. See my latest post re: Gonores' challenge and his variance. I think a 400BB downstreak is definitely possible for a 3BB/100 winner in these aggro online games, especially the SH ones. This actually goes hand-in-hand w/ Ed's point. To maximize earn, you push all the thin edges and play a pretty high variance style. With that comes an occassional brutal streak.

2) Every time I've had a 200BB+ downswing (and I've had a few), it has always involved an "unreal" streak of really bad luck, but is usually augmented with some pretty bad play at times along the way. Mini-tilts of 20BB here and there plus some missed bets at times can easily turn a 150BB run of bad cards into a 250BB disaster. So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

[GuyOnTilt]

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.

Phew. At first glance I thought you were going to call me a liar. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

GoT

[imitation]

But you all agree that moving to a new limit which has a significantly different playing texture it is preferrable to err on the lower side of variance, until one is comfortable with where pushing in places where an edge truely does exist?