I'm new to PP nl $25 - I have some questions

In my poker "career" I have played mostly SnGs at pokerstars, but recently I have played some microlimits ($0.05/$0.10) and been pretty succesfull at that by just quadtabling and camping out. I'm depositing $500 at partypoker now in order to gain advantage of their bonus and to start playing $25 (full ring). Before I start playing I have a couple of quick questions about PP nl $25 tho.

1. Is it possible to turn a profit by quadtabling and camping out in PP nl $25?

2. Just how much is it possible to profit from playing this level (in big blinds pr. hour)?

3. How much to raise premium hands like QQ, KK and AA in PP nl $25? I know the answer for this question is: "it depends". But I just want a general guideline on how much to raise with premium hands. In mircolimits I raised about 4-5 x BB.

4. Is the variance big at nl $25? How many buyins is it legal to drop due to variance? (I wanna to know this, so I dont drop all my money before I realise its not just variance I'm loosing to)

5. How quickly can you clear the full $100 bonus by quadtalbing nl $25?

Oh yeah, got a question more

6. When you flop a good hand, how much do you normally bet (when not slowplaying) - the pot, ½ pot or whatever? (again I know this a "it depends question", but again I just need a general guideline)

The answer to number six is in your question... it's "the pot, ½ pot or whatever"


You can't tell how much the variance is... just note if you're ahead in the hands that you lose, or if you're behind. If you're ahead more often, then it's probably the variance.

But if you lose 10 buy-ins I'm 95% confident you have some big leaks.

1.) Yes
2.)20-30/BB
3.)$1.25-$1.50
4.) I've been lucky, but worst I ever lost there was 3 buy ins in a row due to bad beats.
5.) is it 7x or 5x? About 4-5hrs for the 5x and 6-7 for the 7x (you get about 100-120 rake hands/hr, a tad bit more on the weekend.)
6.)2/3 to 3/4 sometimes pot. Take into consideration how many opponets, and draws are present on the board, try to put your opponet on a range of hands (it's tough sometimes, csilly fish).

1. por supuesto mi amigo

2. it is usually kept track of in big bets per hour (so, in increments of .50 at 25NL). I played 25NL for 4672 hands, usually playing 3 or 4 tables, and made 30BB(big bets) per 100 hands. So, figuring that out for hands per hour, i made ~45-50BB per hour. I don't really know what average would be, but there's me.

3. I rarely found I needed to raise more than 4x, but if you're getting too many callers, 5-6 is fine. If a bunch of people have already limped, do what you gotta do.

4. variance isn't huge. Keep in mind that if you're playing 4 tables the variance can be much bigger than if you're playing at 1. Honestly, its not how many buy-ins you drop, but how you drop them. If you find yourself dropping 2-3 buy-ins, post your key hands on here to see if you played them correctly. In general, you shouldn't be dropping more than 3-4 buy-ins at any given time.

5. I think the first bonus is actually 150 on 500 bucks, or at least it was for me. I cleared it by like the next day. its probably like 8 hours of 4 tabling, as a ballpark.

6. 2/3 to a pot. depends on what they'll call. the more you respect their ability to fold, the closer to 2/3 you can bet, the more of an idiot they are, the closer to pot sized.

1. YES. When I played NL25 and NL50, I was turning a healthy profit by camping out 6-8 tables at once (over two poker sites)

2. I have no idea. Is 'lots' enough of an answer for you?

3. Well as you probably know the idea is to control how many opponents see the flop with you, so when you say 'it depends' you are totally right. My average preflop raise in NL25 was 8xbb, or at least $2. This seems high to most people but you have to keep in mind that N25 players are BAD, and they love to call with anything. I'd start with a pfr of around $2 and see how many poeple are calling. Adjust accordingly if necessary, but IMO raising to amounts below $1.50 is just inviting all sorts of garbage to enter a hand with you.

4. Variance isnt bad. Since you are going to be camping out and not making alot of moves, it should be lower. Also, if you have 4+ tables running at once, this also serves to cut variance down a ton.

5. Well, just figure 40ish hands per hour (I think pp runs faster than some sites too) per table and figure it out for yourself.

6. I overbet the shit out of everything with my made hands. People WILL call. And the same with your pfr, if by some fluke you are at a tight table then adjust your bets down a bit.

"4. Also, if you have 4+ tables running at once, this also serves to cut variance down a ton."

This cannot possibly be true, do you see why?

-'rilla

Originally Posted by underminedsk

6. I overbet the shit out of everything with my made hands. People WILL call. And the same with your pfr, if by some fluke you are at a tight table then adjust your bets down a bit.

Ehum. If you are at a tight table, change table!

Originally Posted by Greedo017

"4. Also, if you have 4+ tables running at once, this also serves to cut variance down a ton."

This cannot possibly be true, do you see why?

-'rilla

It can, it all depends on what time period you look at variance. If it's hourly, the more tables the better. If it's per hand, then the amount of tables doesn't make a lick of difference.

When u guys are playing multiple table at once do u have it on small screen, or youse got like a 21" (saw it recommend) so u can have 4 windows open with no overlapping..

the more tables you play at, the higher your hourly variance.

check resolution... some 21' cant, some can..

look for 1900+ resolution

Originally Posted by ripjohngotti

When u guys are playing multiple table at once do u have it on small screen, or youse got like a 21" (saw it recommend) so u can have 4 windows open with no overlapping..

2 24's .

Originally Posted by Greedo017

the more tables you play at, the higher your hourly variance.

It squishes out the variance curve, but also moves the average result up (assuming you're a winning player)...so fewer losing hours, which I suppose is my poker version of "variance"...more winning, less losing.

Let's look at a situation where you're going to do a 60/40 $1 bet either 10 times an hour or 20 times an hour. Here's the frequency of the various outcomes after about 10k trials:

Code:

10/hr:
-10   -8   -6   -4   -2    0    2    4    6    8   10
 0   .002 .011 .038 .104 .204 .256 .214 .124 .042 .005

20/hr:
-10+  -8   -6   -4   -2    0    2    4    6    8   10+
.002 .004 .014 .030 .068 .124 .159 .175 .166 .128 .131

I know which I'd rather do =)

you are correct, its just a matter of what you mean when you say variance. I mean the number of buy-ins down you might reasonable end up while everything is still ok play wise.

Originally Posted by Greedo017

"4. Also, if you have 4+ tables running at once, this also serves to cut variance down a ton."

This cannot possibly be true, do you see why?

-'rilla

Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I look at it. A single hand doesnt mean anything to a good player right? Even if a winning player gets into a situation where he gets sucked out on, he can be happy with his play because he knows that in the long run he will win alot more than he will lose if put in the same situation over and over.

So I guess my thinking was that if I see 40 hands per hour playing one table, the chance that I will get sucked out on is the same as if I see 300+ hands per hour playing on 8 tables at once, but since I win more than I lose, if I lose some random hand on a suckout on one table, that loss is absorbed by my winnings on the other tables.

Isnt it righ to say that the variance on 10,000 hands is going to be much less than the variance on 100 hands? So the more hands you see, the lower the variance to your BR. Playing 8 tables at once for a year would be like playing 1 table for 8 years....

At least thats my mentality, but feel free to correct me if im off base here.

Originally Posted by iopq

Variance has a strict definition. Variance is calculated by taking the difference between the mean and each individual result and squaring it. Variance is actually not a very useful number, but the square root of variance is the standard deviation, which IS useful.

By the standard limit theorem your variance and standard deviation will decrease when you're quad tabling. You should lose less quad tabling because usually when you lose a buy-in on one table you gain money on others. It's just as likely to lose four buy-ins at the same time quad tabling as to lose four buy-ins SEQUENTIALLY on one table.

thanks for the stats lesson but i think you're missing my point. in a given day if you play 100 hands, your variance will be smaller than if you played 400 hands, even though your variance per 100 hands isn't changing. Think about it this way. Let's say you are one tabling, and have bad luck and drop one buy in per day for four straight days. Now, pretend you were multitabling 4 tables and played the exact same hands, and you dropped four buy-ins in one day. your variance per day is increasing dramatically, which is what we care about when talking about variance, thus why i said it depends on what you mean when you say variance.

hah, i did a google search looking for a better explanation, and i found a forum that was talking about it, and there was an FTR thread linked into. good show.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...g-lhe-7434.htm

thanks for the stats lesson but i think you're missing my point. in a given day if you play 100 hands, your variance will be smaller than if you played 400 hands, even though your variance per 100 hands isn't changing. Think about it this way. Let's say you are one tabling, and have bad luck and drop one buy in per day for four straight days. Now, pretend you were multitabling 4 tables and played the exact same hands, and you dropped four buy-ins in one day. your variance per day is increasing dramatically, which is what we care about when talking about variance, thus why i said it depends on what you mean when you say variance.

that doesnt make sense...

Think about it...

a 200 hand streak of bad luck ..

a) single tableing will take about 4 hours to get out of... basically one session...

b) 4 tableing it will take about 1 hour to get out of and you will hardly be able to tell you had the bad luck at the end of a same 4 hour session.

============

basically you are saying that you will have a worse downswing if you have an 800 hand streak of bad luck than you would with a 200 hand streak of bad luck.

No one is going to disagree with that.

But luck doesnt run bad for so many hours... it runs bad over so many hands.

=============

edit: unless you ignore the number of hands you play and only measure you variance by day.. but what good does "by day" variance do? ... by hands is all that makes sense.

"edit: unless you ignore the number of hands you play and only measure you variance by day.. but what good does "by day" variance do? ... by hands is all that makes sense."

This is what I mean, measuring variance by day. I counter your question with, what does variance by hand matter?

"Note to self: Let go of negative days, sleep is more important than ending the session up" <------ ?

This is what I mean, measuring variance by day. I counter your question with, what does variance by hand matter?

variance by hand says how much of a bankroll you need. It says how much of a swing you should expect.

IF loseing a couple buy-in's is hurting your play, then you need to log off after loseing a couple...

eitherway, multitableing makes the swings hurt less, if I had been single tableing the night that my sig is about I would have had 4 or 5 negative days to write about, not just one quickly recovered from...

what do you think hurts your play more...

one bad day with a 1 day recovery, or 5 bad days with a 5 day recovery? .. over a week in the negative would be a lot more tilting than one bad day and back in the black the next night..

"Note to self: Let go of negative days, sleep is more important than ending the session up" <------ ?

exactly.

ok, i think this is a better way to solve this. It was originally said that multitabling cuts down on your variance. It does not cut down on your variance, it just makes you experience it more quickly. Agreed?

Originally Posted by iopq

By the standard limit theorem your variance and standard deviation will decrease when you're quad tabling.

The central limit theorem has no place here because the distribution of values is not over the same probability space. It covers the sum of n values as n increases, not the sum of sum of n values as n increases.

Looking at the example of earlier (with comparing groups of 10 or 20 samples of a 60/40 chance), the ave and std dev come out to be like such (again after about 10k samples):

Code:

10 group: AVE 1.94 STDDEV 3.12
20 group: AVE 3.89 STDDEV 4.41

This illustrates two important points. The first being that yes, the standard deviation is larger - indicating that the distribution curve isn't tight enough to cover for the expanding probability space. Secondly, if you look at play within 1 deviation of the mean, the low end of that range is *almost* positive for the groups of 20, which it's more then 1 point negative for groups of 10. This supports both Greedo's points and my own.

haha. Um. crunchy, can you sum that last post up in english?

ok, i think this is a better way to solve this. It was originally said that multitabling cuts down on your variance. It does not cut down on your variance, it just makes you experience it more quickly. Agreed?

total agreement

number of tables playes has ZERO affect on your variance.

Originally Posted by EricE

haha. Um. crunchy, can you sum that last post up in english?

Absolutly.

Originally Posted by CrunchyNuts

Statistics suck