Quote:
Originally Posted by xPISCIVOROUSx
Running Good: You´re winning hands/pots you were suposed to loose
Running Bad: You´re loosing hands/pots you were suposed to loose
This is very common for small samples and/or short term play, over big samples and/or long term is all about the EV you generate (How good you really are as a poker player).
Thanks for the explanation. What I meant by my first statement "delta between actual WR and All-in adjusted WR" is that assuming all-in adjusted WR is your true EV (under a statistically significant sample), the difference of your actual win-rate per 100 hands and your EV per 100 hands is the definition of running good or bad.
Here's an example, say you won 100k BB over 1 million hands and your EV for these hands is 10k BB, the delta (difference) is positive, you are running hot. Vice versa, if your EV over 1million hands is 100K BB, and you won 20K BB, you are below your ev and therefore running bad.
The definition of a cooler dictates that you have made a play that generates EV in the long run but in the short term (This single hand) it results in a decrease in your overall EV because of an unlikely situation. The takeaway is volume IMO. Because with a larger sample size, you are more likely to reach a volume that shows your true EV.
This is my interpretation of running good/bad, it's based on a more statistical sense and upon further reflection I think should be separated from the traditional BBV "run good"/ "run bad", which is more of a perception and not the reality. An argument can be made that this type of perception about run good/ run bad does not exist.
Here comes the million dollar question then: if you will NEVER reach a pure, statistically significant sample size of hands when playing poker live, especially live tournaments, is it even GTO to play live poker? You will be in a good place to win money statistically if you are a winning player, but wouldn't the edge be almost completely neutralized statistically because of the tiny, tiny sample size?