I guess it depends on WR as well. You can be a "winner" at $5/hr at 2/5. You're a lot more likely to have a 20BI downswing that way. A crushing player is a lot more likely to avoid some of those lost buy ins.

Using BI as a metric isn't good. BB is better.

When I first started to play live seriously, I lost way more than 20 "buy ins". The first year was really bad, I would've busted my roll if not for online poker.

Admittedly, I had some leaks and I wasn't as good as I am now, but there were many months where it felt like every session I'd get set over set or lose with aces pre flop. I'm surprised I didn't quit.

For those that haven't had a 2000+ BB downswing it probably means:

1. You haven't played enough hours (thousands of hours of live poker isn't enough)

2. You're playing shallow games

3. Passing up on EV

4. You're not playing in good games

I'm not sure what the difference is between BIs and BB if BI is simply defined as 100 BB

Fwiw I have played 4-5k lifetime hours, a little 1/2, most 2/5, and some 5/10 and the largest "downswing" I have had was 13bi all at 2:5 for 6.5k. I attribute say 1500-2000 on bad play.

I put downswing in quotations because it's an annoying word most players blame / scapegoat poor play on, though admittedly it can legit be bad variance some of the time

Because 1 BI cannot be simply defined as 100 BB.

1 BI could mean 100 BB on one day but could mean 300 BB the next etc.

There's no confusion using BB

This is what happens.

People use the term variance as a crutch and since there is no database they will continue to believe that a 20buyin downswing in a slow pased game where you should have at the least a 3bb/hr edge is possible.

I find it very hard to believe that there are 16 consecutive "coolers" or suck outs occurring.

I will however concede that in the rare case you are playing in games where people are shipping 1k blind and you are willing to stuff it with a3 then of course it's possible.

If your normal game looks nothing like this then you are ****ing up royally.

Your edge on the game certainly does determine what your downswings are going to look like.

Thinner edge = more variance

LOL.

1. Age old argument that has no merit.

2. Like slim said, 20BI or 2000bb, same thing.

3. Another age old argument that simply cannot be proved. If passing up so-called +EV spots keeps you from losing 2000bb, you'll be a fool to do otherwise.

4. LOL...que?

I lost 2,100bb (21 BI) in an 80 hour stretch in may/june - that's included in my 1.5k hour sample this year and my final winrate over the whole sample is still over 10 bb/hr. I can't really say I played well but I did try.

I thought I muted this troll.

1. The reason you believe this is because you're getting one sided feedback itf. The people who ran really bad weren't rolled and were not mentally prepared. They subsequently quit poker and didn't bother to post results. They'd be laughed at if they did.

Don't let the slow pace or the softness of live poker fool you. Variance is real. It doesn't matter if you play online or live, it will catch up to you or bury you early if you're not prepared.

2. If you haven't had large BB swings it probably means you play in dumb 50 big blind (or less) games when playing online or somewhere else would be far more profitable.

3. I see nit/tag grinders pass up on +ev spots all the time. An example that comes to mind would be not bluff catching with ace or king high in standard spots.

4. Not playing in good games overlaps with #2. If you're playing in nitty games with few showdowns you won't have huge swings/ will be able to avoid "coolers" but it's just not going to be worth your time.

Live poker is for deep stacks, loose action, and big pots. Which means if you're playing right your BB +/- will fluctuate more.

While going on a big downswing is rare, people should be prepared. If your roll is 20BI and you're spending anything you make over that faster than a kid can eat candy, you're going be in for a rude awakening.

I think that's the point. We are not saying it isn't possible. But it's not just variance. Just like you, Rob, and Pay4school said, there is defiantly a good bit of bad play in there that made the downswing worse than it should have been

Not sure if this was the same period but you had some pretty epic FPS early in the year which I assume contributed

You do understand you don't have to take every +EV spot right. If I risk $200 to win .25c, I'm making a +EV play. But it would take so long for variance to equal out. Put it like this. Unless I'm playing the best HU player in the world I don't need to take every percentage point of EV. Thats bc my edge is so large elsewhere. If IKE and Jungleman play HU they will take a spot where they have 1% edge, bc their edges against each other are so small. But against these fish in LLS there is no need. We already have HUGE edges against them, so no need to take super high variance approach

As we come across better players we have to take smaller edges.

Also u say u see regs not bluff catching A hi. I see regs trying to bluff calling stations, paying off loose passive players large river bets, missing value by not value betting thinly enough, playing RIO hands and losing huge pots, and I see regs do terrible jobs at putting their villains on a range. This is the value people are missing. Its not bc they don't bluff catch with high cards

I have stated this before in this thread and I will state it again I personally SINCE black friday have over 6k hours of live play. I am quite dialed into the poker scene here in vegas. I have zero friends/(poker pals) whose game I respect that have gone on downswings to the tune of 10K+.

Note: I am good at meeting people and know and talk to a LOT of pros in las vegas

so ya maybe you run worse than everyone else combined. Orrrrrrrrrr maybe you go on serious tilt...or maybe you have some rather large leaks that you simply do not see

bluffcatch live villians with king high more and your downswings will eventually subside

I've learned that pointing these simple things out to people is a gigantic waste of effort as no one makes mistakes ever and the only reason anyone ever loses is variance.

pass up on +ev spots to avoid variance.

If this is a legitimate thought during a hand you need to move down stakes.

The problem is that people say "high variance" when they really mean "losing".

This, +1

Excellent poast Squid. I have the same experience. PLO is different, but when it comes to NL hold em i dont know any players/pros i respect that have gone on 20 buyin downswing.

What i do see is all kind of players spewing/tilting all over the place in all kind of forms and shapes, or make bad plays wich they THINK is "running bad".

For myself i havent been on a downswing more than 10 buyins, and that happend when i was much worse of a player than i am today and played in much more aggressive games with fierce lineups.

Also this.

Dude, I don't troll, but I probably should lighten up in my stance.

You said "thousands" of hours of live is not enough.

Few premises:

1. Winning players.

2. Actively playing in a reasonable span of time.

If someone has played thousands of hours, chances are that the person is properly rolled and has seen sufficient number of bad beats.

Lastly, no one can be mentally prepared to lose 20BI, unless of course it is a frequent occurrence.

Of course variance is real, and of course it will bury you.

However, you have not used it to bridge any of your points.

The context was that 20BI (100bb) is the same as 2000bb.

How does your response have anything to do with those 2 being the same?

Quoted post was that if passing up +EV spots can help you to avoid 20BI downswing, then you probably should.

So how is citing an example address my point?

In other words, you are making a correlation of big swing with "good" games?

Perhaps those aren't good games if there's a big -20BI kicker to go with it?

Again, you're citing a fairly indisputable point, but never using it to bridge any of your opinions.

Bah, I give up. Everything I have cited are just you posting bunch of indisputable points but none of them actually provide any direct support to your horribly written list of opinions.

10k+ at what stake?

Plausible for 2/5 100bbs but 5/T+ i would be very surprised

Fwiw i think 10k at a 200xbb game with regular straddles is inevitable but straddling is way less prevalent in Vegas than other places

I pretty sure it's understood we are talking 20BI in standard 100BB game, Obv if you buy in for 200BB, and most of table is buying in for more than 100BB, or if there is a mandatory straddle, then u can't compare it to a normal game. If your average buy in is 1k then a 20BI downswing is $20k, not $10k.

the discussion was 20+buy ins at 2/5...so I was referring to 2/5 game. For what its worth I buy in at 2/5 for 1k and most of my pals do as well...none of whom have gone on a 10K+ downswing at 2/5

Update: I am on a 2 BI downswing currently because these fools can't lay down TP2k to a 3 barrel bluff shove.


I need to move up to 5/T where the swings aren't so bad.

Or you could move down where your upswing is BIx2

You have to assume that 1) no one is misreporting (lol ego) and 2) sufficient sample size - as i recall you have mentioned on multiple times that you have seen more people entering and leaving this poker-pro business than you can remember. Are you saying that throughout your 7 years every single one of your friends that you had this 10BI conversation with is still around and still never had a 10BI downswing?

Fwiw, I know for a fact that a few players you/or most people would consider good have lost 10k+ in a row before, some multiple times.

Downswing CAN be a player's excuse for playing poorly (and most of the times it is), but very rarely it might just be variance. Im saying while it's usually easy (and correct) to go with the former, the latter does happen.

Poker skill isnt black and white - you aren't either "good" or "bad". Most players have various numbers of leaks and they are just a LOT more amplified when cards arent falling their way. When a person is running hot it's just too easy to tell someone else that they are bad, even though they themselves might be no better.