Exactly. I'm saying that I'm going to start tracking orbit-by-orbit--the smallest sensible unit of measure--and THEN analyzing the distribution and possibly re-combining orbits to see if there's a CLT-like pattern.

Which is why I suggested running a sanity check with online data before bothering trying to collect these kinds of stats live.

We could re-construct both methods from a full hand history database and compare the results. I don't think it'll matter, but it's hard to tell for sure.

I want to generate my own data for 2 reasons:

1. I think it would be fun (this is the most important reason).
2. Live is different from online and I would not expect HH data to have the same distribution no matter what the online data showed me. I'd still want live data no matter what I found.

Probably wouldn't be *that* bad? Just every UTG record current win/loss in notes? I'd suggest doing this UTG because you'll most likely be folding (as opposed to Button) which will give you time to do the math/notetaking. Still, in a 6 hour session you'll likely have to do this like 18 times.

GgoodluckG

Yeah my plan was to consider an orbit as beginning every time I'm on the BB.

Also, I wouldn't be doing the arithmetic at the table. I'd just record starting stack size and ending stack size and then do the math at home when I'm entering it into a spreadsheet.

Distribution of what? I'm not clear on your doubt that whatever variable you're going to look at would approach a normal distribution (asymptotically), so the only issue would be sample size, correct?

In any case, sample size issues aside, it shouldn't matter whether we use hands, orbits, hours, or sessions, since the distribution is normalized to have mean = zero, i.e. it's scale invariant.

Hopefully bip! confirms the above is accurate, since I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I try to sound like I do.

OMG may I?

The only problem with doing it every BB is that obviously you'll be playing the majority of your BBs, which might interfere with your notetaking.

And I guess with stack size you mean your total BI to that point? Might get confusing, especially if you keep extra chips in your pocket like I do. Your +/- might be easier to track, but I'm sure you'll figure out whatever is easiest.

Gand....go!G

I didn't know he was doing it going forward. It's impossible to do going backwards but since you have plenty of past data, combing sessions is the only thing I could think of.

There are plenty of distributions though, your data might fit something that isn't normal. I wouldn't go so far out of my way to hope/force it to be normal. I'd hypothesize though that it doesn't fit anything perfectly but normal is the closest.

I tested my data for normality, it failed a chi-squared test. But looking at it, the shape is closer to normal than anything else.

wat

record buyin, take a pic of stack every orbit while pretending to text. ez game.

If anyone asks, simply say "I'm taking a dick pic, bro".

GezgameG

This particular poster seems too into a "system" to do well, you can't know how you're going to attack a session before it happens.

But making a living at 1/2 isn't difficult. I don't know what the careers are of the regulars in LLSNL but I'd imagine $25/hour in LV is within our capabilities. That's $50K a year if you fit in 40 hours/week. That's more money than plenty of jobs, especially plenty of first year jobs. The boredom is the difficult part, not the winrate. I think more than 1 out of 1,ooo cam pull off the winrate.

Record on the SB, you should be folding something like 105% of them anyway.

I recorded several hundred SB results. Once I got in the habit it really wasn't bad and I was doing way more than stack size.

I'd also like to point out to CMV that all he has to Do is record current stack size not start and finish.

If also ask about what happens when the table is less than full. Will that skew it for you?

By stack size do you literally mean just the stack size in front of him at the moment? Cuz that definitely won't work as it doesn't take into account rebuys.

GcluelessstatsnoobG

I was wondering about that too.

Gnosir,youmaynotgoforabathroombreak,I'minthemiddle ofsomethinghereG

Yes, I have thought about this. I'm just going to consider any hand I'm not at the table as a hand where I fold blind (and I will also just not record any orbits I skip). Also, short-handed play *may* skew results, and I'm aware of that, but short-handed play tends to mean skipping the worst positions, where I'd normally be folding anyway, so I don't think the skew effect will be that much (but probably will be there a little bit).

EDITed to add: this effect would tend to skew hours or sessions too. So I don't think the effect is unique to tracking by orbit.

that's assuming no rebuy, but you could add that info when appropriate. Simple is best with these things though so as long as no money has left the pocket a single sum will work.

I am a rebuy fiend when I don't start off the session on a positive note. I will be taking this into account.

as you should. alls im sayin is if you dont rebuy then you dont have to put anything other than current stack size. if you rebuy just add it in (or subtract). from my experience less is more.

Alright, guys. I recently hit $1k on Bovada and I need a break from online poker. I am going to cash out and take this roll live and actually not spend any winnings, like I have been for the last year.

I am curious, if you had $1k to play live, really did not want to risk going bust(which I seriously doubt is even possible with how soft the live 1/2 games are here), how would you do it? Are you playing extra tight and passing up on some marginal spots? What about preflop, are you looking to see more flops with hands like TT, JJ, QQ, AKs, and less interested in getting it in pre for stacks?

^ Passing on marginal spots doesn't guarantee lowered variance. It probably increases the variance.

You can't be concerned about the short run. I hate when guys on ESPN says "In the playoffs, sabermetrics don't work." It's not that, it's just that it may take many short runs (playoff appearances) to see the benefits. But no matter how long or short they make the playoff series, it behooves you to make the most EV long run decisions.

So it's not optimal that you have just $1K but it doesn't mean there's some secret low bankroll strategy that's guaranteed to win. If there were, even the guys with a lot more money would do it. Play 1/2 like you have $100K, if you go broke it sucks, but there's nothing else you can do.

I play in some soft games (albeit crazy sometimes) and it's pretty easy to punt $1000.

You can't really *worry* about losing it all. Buy in for $200 at a shot. Pick your spots well. That doesn't mean to play super nitty and wait for lock hands, you'll bleed chips that way and get little action when you do pick up a hand. It means sit down and assess the table, then make a plan before you go getting into marginal spots against player you don't know. Once you've got a read/profile on them feel free to open up a bit more.

There's some value in passing up really close spots if losing will hurt your mental state and your play afterwards though.

Tbh Bovada is so soft that it might be a better idea to build it to 2k on there through .25/.50 cash games before cashing out and playing live. Risk of ruin will be much lower since you'll have 20 buyins to work with instead of just 5 buyins at $1/$2 live.

YOU'RE at risk of going bust even if you had 2k, 3k, etc

I'd buy in for the max (or 300), and play the most optimal poker you are capable of.

If you want to reduce variance or risk of ruin, then cash out when you have 400, 500, or whenever you start to "feel it"