Just curious about everyone’s opinion. I know there’s a difference, but how do you determine the difference and what steps do you take to evaluate.
Should be an interesting conversation.
Go!
Should be an interesting conversation.
Go!
Variance/Run Bad vs Bad Play (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shorticus
- Start date
In my very short poker experience, I've had nights where I didn't make a mistake yet lost everything, and sometimes unbelievable runs where I hit everything, no matter what. And all in between. Overall, I'm probably an even cash player which is great, because I'm really all about the social aspect.
It's been a long time since I played any serious poker, but decisions (good or bad) are pretty situational.
I can make a bad decision in one setting that may be the right decision against completely different players. I'm not talking about the math. I'm talking about reading the game and reading the opponent. Mix in the human variance of a certain player changing up their game and not noticing that adjustment is just as critical as knowing the odds.
Back when I thought I was a baller, I played for pretty high stakes.
I was never a real baller, so mistakes hit hard. If I went three for four sessions and started damaging my bankroll, I would look back and try to determine if players I thought I had a read on did something different than I thought they would when I sat down at the table.
Then I would go home, climb into a hot shower, lay down in the fetal position like I was in a Lifetime movie and sob.
These days I'm just a worn-out, broke ass old man with nothing to his name but some entertaining stories.
Do exactly the opposite of anything perceived as poker instruction from me.
I can make a bad decision in one setting that may be the right decision against completely different players. I'm not talking about the math. I'm talking about reading the game and reading the opponent. Mix in the human variance of a certain player changing up their game and not noticing that adjustment is just as critical as knowing the odds.
Back when I thought I was a baller, I played for pretty high stakes.
I was never a real baller, so mistakes hit hard. If I went three for four sessions and started damaging my bankroll, I would look back and try to determine if players I thought I had a read on did something different than I thought they would when I sat down at the table.
Then I would go home, climb into a hot shower, lay down in the fetal position like I was in a Lifetime movie and sob.
These days I'm just a worn-out, broke ass old man with nothing to his name but some entertaining stories.
Do exactly the opposite of anything perceived as poker instruction from me.
drdr
3 of a Kind
When I used to play to supplement income, I'd keep meticulous records of session results. The graph don't lie in games against a large field of players while ensuring playing within the bankroll's limits. The graphs dipping but my play is apparently unchanged... bad run.
1: Math never lies
The issue with poker, and with much of the aspects of life that deal with variance and risk, is that you will never really know if you are a winning player or not until it is nearly far too late and you would have accumulated a sizable loss. It is however, a necessity. Track your playing sessions over hours, run reviews of monumental hands with other professionals (winning players) and if everyone concurs that its a bad beat, 90% of the time it is.
Track sessions, run hand reviews, continue studying poker. 80% of the time you should be studying the game, and 20% of the time you should be playing (for pros). Once you move into profitability and join the grinders, such questions will be far beneath you and it will be then up to you to enlighten others.
Good luck!
The issue with poker, and with much of the aspects of life that deal with variance and risk, is that you will never really know if you are a winning player or not until it is nearly far too late and you would have accumulated a sizable loss. It is however, a necessity. Track your playing sessions over hours, run reviews of monumental hands with other professionals (winning players) and if everyone concurs that its a bad beat, 90% of the time it is.
Track sessions, run hand reviews, continue studying poker. 80% of the time you should be studying the game, and 20% of the time you should be playing (for pros). Once you move into profitability and join the grinders, such questions will be far beneath you and it will be then up to you to enlighten others.
Good luck!
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Win rates in big bet poker games overwhelm variation quickly. You absolutely will know if you are a big winner or big loser. If your results hover around breakeven - then sure, you will not be able to tell if you are a slight winner or slight loser.
The lore about needing tens of thousands of hands to know how much you do or don't win comes from limit poker. The win rates are very thin in limit poker while the variance is only slightly smaller than big bet poker.
Examples:
Let's take a big bet poker game. A solid winning player makes 20 big blinds per hour. Let's say he was a bit laggy so his variance is also 20 big bets per hour. Some hours he kills the game - 5% of the time he will win 60bb in an hour. 5% of the time he loses 20bb in an hour.
win rates are linier. you win / lose your rate every hour on average. But the variance grows with the square root of the time spent playing. At the end of a four hour session our winning player above has made ( on average ) 4 hours X 20BB per hour = 80 BB. But the variance will be (sqrt of 4) = 2 X 20BB - or - 20BB for the session. This player only has one losing session every twenty nights. See? Its obvious this player is a big winner with less than a hundred hours.
Let's cut the win rate to 10BB/hr while keeping the variance at 20BB/hr. For this player, a four hour session looks like this - wins 40BB on average. Break even or worse a third of the time. +80BB or more a third of the time.
So what does this look like at a hundred hours? Average win rate = 1,000BB (10BB/hour X 100 hours = 1,000BB) Variance is 200BB per hundred hours played. ( 20BB/hr X (sqrt 100) 10 = 200BB per hundred hands. The chance of this player having a random breakeven or worse result after playing a hundred hours is vanishingly low - something like 3.5 million to one.
Bluntly, a significantly winning player that suddenly stops winning for any substantial time is NOT bad variance or bad luck. Its bad play or the player pool got much tougher or maybe the player is suffering from an illness. yeah, yeah, I have seen the hand histories, the bad beat examples blah, blah, blah. Very pretty graphs to be sure. But math doesn't lie. If someone's win rate plunges over a month or two in a weekly game, it is primarily due to poor play or tougher villains or both.
One bad night easily happens. A bad month ( playing weekly) rarely happens. A bad year is unthinkable for the 10BB+ win rate player. Not once in a typical lifetime.
DrStrange
The lore about needing tens of thousands of hands to know how much you do or don't win comes from limit poker. The win rates are very thin in limit poker while the variance is only slightly smaller than big bet poker.
Examples:
Let's take a big bet poker game. A solid winning player makes 20 big blinds per hour. Let's say he was a bit laggy so his variance is also 20 big bets per hour. Some hours he kills the game - 5% of the time he will win 60bb in an hour. 5% of the time he loses 20bb in an hour.
win rates are linier. you win / lose your rate every hour on average. But the variance grows with the square root of the time spent playing. At the end of a four hour session our winning player above has made ( on average ) 4 hours X 20BB per hour = 80 BB. But the variance will be (sqrt of 4) = 2 X 20BB - or - 20BB for the session. This player only has one losing session every twenty nights. See? Its obvious this player is a big winner with less than a hundred hours.
Let's cut the win rate to 10BB/hr while keeping the variance at 20BB/hr. For this player, a four hour session looks like this - wins 40BB on average. Break even or worse a third of the time. +80BB or more a third of the time.
So what does this look like at a hundred hours? Average win rate = 1,000BB (10BB/hour X 100 hours = 1,000BB) Variance is 200BB per hundred hours played. ( 20BB/hr X (sqrt 100) 10 = 200BB per hundred hands. The chance of this player having a random breakeven or worse result after playing a hundred hours is vanishingly low - something like 3.5 million to one.
Bluntly, a significantly winning player that suddenly stops winning for any substantial time is NOT bad variance or bad luck. Its bad play or the player pool got much tougher or maybe the player is suffering from an illness. yeah, yeah, I have seen the hand histories, the bad beat examples blah, blah, blah. Very pretty graphs to be sure. But math doesn't lie. If someone's win rate plunges over a month or two in a weekly game, it is primarily due to poor play or tougher villains or both.
One bad night easily happens. A bad month ( playing weekly) rarely happens. A bad year is unthinkable for the 10BB+ win rate player. Not once in a typical lifetime.
DrStrange
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
