roller coaster ride. How much volatility is usual?

I've been playing hold em for about 4 months; probably about 3000 hands total in that time. I went to a casino last weekend and played 3/6 live for the first time. Anyway, I found myself down about 70 big bets ($423) really quick. Partially due to suck outs and partially due to tilting from disbelief about how much I was losing. I kept playing and finished the day up about $220 and at point was up $301 (50 big bets). I played for about 9.5 hours and figure this to be approximately 400 hands.

My question is whether it is usual to have a 120 big bet swing in a 400 hand session?

[AKQJ10]

That's a little wild for that size session, though not rare by any means. (I'm transposing to Foxwoods $2/4 which I know best, but I would imagine your $3/6 plays similarly.) You admit you were tilting which added to the volatility.

[bholdr]

your swing was large, but not a particularily rare or suprising event, statisticly speaking, especially for a beginner in a 3/6 live game.

try reading "small stakes hold'em" by Ed Miller.

i doubt reading ssh will help your volatility whatsoever. since this work recommends playing highly marginal hands, aggressively, your volatility will be multiples of the one you describe.

i know that miller swears afore god that he has testimonials from fellows sporting bankrolls of 300k, attributable to his work alone. which may be true---but you know, i have heard of similar claims made of miracle varieties of snake oil, that swear they cure the gout, tuberculosis, heart arhythmia, and various intractable strains of venereal canker. me, i dont have any idea what the truth is. but i can definitely tell you, you'll find yourself down someday, and it just gets worse. and worse. and worse. and if you dont know how to slow down, youre in for a severe collapse in your liquidity.

volatility is also a function of the opposition you're facing; play with tight passives produces less volatility than loose aggressives, etc.

[derick]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing hold em for about 4 months; probably about 3000 hands total in that time. I went to a casino last weekend and played 3/6 live for the first time. Anyway, I found myself down about 70 big bets ($423) really quick. Partially due to suck outs and partially due to tilting from disbelief about how much I was losing. I kept playing and finished the day up about $220 and at point was up $301 (50 big bets). I played for about 9.5 hours and figure this to be approximately 400 hands.

My question is whether it is usual to have a 120 big bet swing in a 400 hand session?

[/ QUOTE ]

Losing 120 big bets in 400 hands is not that rare.

Everyone sooner or later has a 300bb downswing.

But...


I expect my results to vary within plus or minus 3 standard deviations (about 45 to 60 big bets and hour)

If I'm losing more than 60 big bets an hour more than 1% of the time... something may be wrong...

take a break... think ...

Can I play and not tilt?

If the answer is no -

Go home.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
i doubt reading ssh will help your volatility whatsoever. since this work recommends playing highly marginal hands, aggressively, your volatility will be multiples of the one you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good points. Miller will actually increase one's volatility, but it will hopefully increase one's confidence in playing the right way too. If you need a "pep talk" about volatility to keep from getting down then GSiH has some stuff about that, but you can get the same reading these forums.

[ QUOTE ]
i have heard of similar claims made of miracle varieties of snake oil, that swear they cure the gout, tuberculosis, heart arhythmia, and various intractable strains of venereal canker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Critical thinking is a good thing; however, I trust Miller's advice not because I'm sold on his sales pitch or his testimonials but because his advice is so well founded in logic and math. Frankly I'm pretty sure there are examples of people losing their shirt by misapplying his advice, because that's what all of us do -- misapply things we've learned.

[ QUOTE ]
volatility is also a function of the opposition you're facing; play with tight passives produces less volatility than loose aggressives, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good point, although moving down limits is probably a better way to decrease real $ volatility without incurring the decrease in EV (in BB terms) that would come from searching out tight games. Passivity, though, is indisputably a good trait in opponents. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Of course moving down means less $ EV once you know you can beat the higher level, but the OP doesn't sound there yet.

Alas, you can't move down and play casino poker, which is my biggest reason for playing online - to build a bankroll to take on B&M games without fear.