Question about variance

So I've got a simple question for the winning players around here.
On average how many days do you win and how many do you loose?
Is it something like 60%/40% or more like 90%/10%?
Also do you win more on your winning days than you loose on your loosing days?

This might help me to avoid tilt by seeing the bigger picture hopefully

You'll get varying answers on this depending on how much each player plays each day.

variance will not seize an opportunity to sodomize you

just have plenty of vaseline or other lube oil ready

play more to see the bigger picture ldo

once you go through a couple of shit streaks and then grind back out of them you should begin to deal with variance much better.

People bitch about variance, but what they really care about is your chances of losing 20+ buy-ins.

That's a function of win-rate.

Originally Posted by Fnord

People bitch about variance, but what they really care about is your chances of losing 20+ buy-ins.

That's a function of win-rate and standard deviation.

Win-rate is the VASTLY more important of the two for a reasonable range of values for the Unlimited Hold'Them (the Cadilac of Poker.)

Originally Posted by Fnord

Win-rate is the VASTLY more important of the two for a reasonable range of values for the Unlimited Hold'Them (the Cadilac of Poker.)

you're just mad because he's correct since it's a function of both

Originally Posted by iopq

you're just mad because he's correct since it's a function of both

While correct, it's not practical. Passing on big money marginal plays and folding marginal hands (particularly against poor players) hurts you more than it helps you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by iopq

you're just mad because he's correct since it's a function of both

While correct, it's not practical. Passing on big money marginal plays and folding marginal hands (particularly against poor players) hurts you more than it helps you.

But actually you shouldn't care about variance because if you employ proper bankroll management and you move up and down stakes just fine your EV shouldn't go down that much

There is no point in decreasing variance other than for psychological reasons

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by iopq

you're just mad because he's correct since it's a function of both

While correct, it's not practical. Passing on big money marginal plays and folding marginal hands (particularly against poor players) hurts you more than it helps you.

If two plays have different EVs, and you choose the play with the lower EV, it's a mistake, and we all agree on that.

Originally Posted by Cardsharp

So I've got a simple question for the winning players around here.
On average how many days do you win and how many do you loose?
Is it something like 60%/40% or more like 90%/10%?
Also do you win more on your winning days than you loose on your loosing days?

This might help me to avoid tilt by seeing the bigger picture hopefully

According to poker tracker. Im only winning like 53.51% of my sessions. (1000 sessions recorded)

This may seem depressing...but it aint. I win more with my winning hands then i lose with my losing hands, and thats pretty much how u make money playing poker.

I'm mainly asking because I want to prepare myself a little better mentally for those downswings.
In the past I have tilted of my bankroll severall times because of downswings.
I haven't really tilted in 1,5 month now(since I started playing again) But I know big downswings will come.

I never had a big bankroll before though. I usually deposited $50 and won reasonably well, but when a big downswing happened I tilted. A big downswing with a small roll is ofcourse more difficult to handle for everyone.
This time I started playing with $100 and played some 5 and 10nl + some tournaments and sngs untill I had $400. Still underrolled for 25nl but I started anyways.
I have $670 now and I have played 25nl for 3.5K hand now.
So far so good, 15bb/100(I don't expect this to be my longer term average though)
My higest downswing so far was 4buyins, witch was sickly easy to handle now because of my bigger roll. But I still want to know what to expect.
Because when I know what to expect, it's easier to handle(hopefully).


I have the fealing my game is profitable(not optimal), but my main leak could be tilt when it happens, and my main leak was tilt with all my previous deposits.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

we all agree on that.

When worded like that, yes. In practice, no.

Originally Posted by Cardsharp

I never had a big bankroll before though. I usually deposited $50 and won reasonably well, but when a big downswing happened I tilted. A big downswing with a small roll is ofcourse more difficult to handle for everyone.
This time I started playing with $100 and played some 5 and 10nl + some tournaments and sngs untill I had $400. Still underrolled for 25nl but I started anyways.
I have $670 now and I have played 25nl for 3.5K hand now.
So far so good, 15bb/100(I don't expect this to be my longer term average though)

Reread what you just wrote. Your coming on here asking for help to avoid this massive tilt problem that you have, yet you decide that it's a good idea to play fairly underrolled, as if that is a good idea. Did it ever occur to you that if you played within your roll, then a big downswing wouldn't matter as much because it would be a less significant portion of your Bankroll??? Or did you overlook that portion.

Sorry to sound like an ass, but quite frankly I find your being very counterproductive. You say your biggest leak is tilt, and this is proven by the fact that you have lost numerous rolls because of it, yet you make a decision to play in a fashion that makes you more prone to tilt? Just doesn't make sense. Seems like you have a major lack of discipline.

If you wanted to make yourself less prone to tilt it would probably be advisable to begin adhering to a strict BR management program from this point on. That involves deciding when to move up, and move down (since you are right on the borderline of being properly rolled for 25nl). There is nothing wrong with being a BR nit. It just shows that you care enough about the long term, and that your not in it for the quick score that is so hard to come by.

Theres a good article by Alex Rousso 'I'd rather be lucky than good' in this months bluff magazine, he says you need to have played about 500,000 hands to get a fair reflection of how well your doing in cash games, if your a 'not very' aggressive player.

Also bear in mind that the more aggressive your style of play the greater the fluctuations will be.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

we all agree on that.

When worded like that, yes. In practice, no.

I'm actually very interested in this facet of the conversation. Are there really people who skip out on plays that they think are +EV because the edge is small relative to what is risked?

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Theres a good article by Alex Rousso 'I'd rather be lucky than good' in this months bluff magazine, he says you need to have played about 500,000 hands to get a fair reflection of how well your doing in cash games, if your a 'not very' aggressive player.

Also bear in mind that the more aggressive your style of play the greater the fluctuations will be.

So I guess after 500,000 hands of 100nl I should have moved up instead of down, eh?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Theres a good article by Alex Rousso 'I'd rather be lucky than good' in this months bluff magazine, he says you need to have played about 500,000 hands to get a fair reflection of how well your doing in cash games, if your a 'not very' aggressive player.

Also bear in mind that the more aggressive your style of play the greater the fluctuations will be.

So I guess after 500,000 hands of 100nl I should have moved up instead of down, eh?

you didnt move far enough down.

We wanted a 1000000 sample of 50ptbbs/100 at 10nl sir!

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Theres a good article by Alex Rousso 'I'd rather be lucky than good' in this months bluff magazine, he says you need to have played about 500,000 hands to get a fair reflection of how well your doing in cash games, if your a 'not very' aggressive player.

Also bear in mind that the more aggressive your style of play the greater the fluctuations will be.

You need to stop getting poker knowledge from such shitty sources.

100,000 hands is often enough, "aggressive" player or not.

1 of the reasons I don't wanna play lower than 25nl is because on partypoker theres only fulltable games of that.
And I like to play 6max more.
And it is true that I have a bit of a discipline problem, but thats something I have to work on myself.
Anyways I don't plan to move up levels underrolled.
I'm playing 6max now and I don't feel the need to move up. But like I said before, when I move down I have to play full ring witch I don't like that much.

That's fine. It is your roll afterall. Just keep a few things in mind. One being that if you tilted after losing a buyin or two at 5nl/10nl, you are likely to tilt when you lose a buyin at 25nl, and because it's a more significant amount you could tilt harder. And that there is gonna be a chance because you are right on the brink of being properly rolled that you hit abad swing and need to move down. Well, if you aren't gonna move down because you don't like playing Full Ring, then you'll stay at 25nl and there will be a good chance you will tilt away your roll.

Originally Posted by Deanglow

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Theres a good article by Alex Rousso 'I'd rather be lucky than good' in this months bluff magazine, he says you need to have played about 500,000 hands to get a fair reflection of how well your doing in cash games, if your a 'not very' aggressive player.

Also bear in mind that the more aggressive your style of play the greater the fluctuations will be.

You need to stop getting poker knowledge from such shitty sources.

100,000 hands is often enough, "aggressive" player or not.

Well, 100K hands of crushing
100K hands of 0.5PTBB/100 doesn't mean you're a winning player which was the point of the article

I just looked at some Juli, August etc. graph threats.
It seems like 10+ buyin downswings happen almost monthly for most players.

Variance is best described in terms of standard deviation in big bets per 100 hands.

The reason asking what % of days you win and what % of days you lose is bad is because someone who plays 8 tables and gets in 3k hands a day will have a lot fewer losing days than someone who plays 1 table and gets in 300 hands a day.

Originally Posted by Cardsharp

It seems like 10+ buyin downswings happen almost monthly for most players.

Most players are losers or marginal winners. Including more FTR posters than you'd think.

Also winning players go on tilt, don't adjust, take shots, spew at tables full of regs, etc. All things that make them no longer winning players.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

we all agree on that.

When worded like that, yes. In practice, no.

I'm actually very interested in this facet of the conversation. Are there really people who skip out on plays that they think are +EV because the edge is small relative to what is risked?

You'll hear about stuff like that all of the time in $5/$10 and $10/$20 live games. Although a lot of those are uncapped and play deep, so they confuse edges with pot control a lot.

Online, I see multi-tablers giving up EV for volume with a lot. Sometime watch Gregy20723 play his 16, 20 tables or whatever. It's very interesting the spots he plays and the spots he skips to make for a very mechanical game. Maybe one of these days I'll wise up and learn to fold to his sets.