I think there are lots of reasons for the differences in my winrates, but right near the top are (a) the overall play of the player pool (from long time whales to long time fish to randoms as well as new regs with which I have no history) has improved *dramatically*, and (b) the good regs with whom I do have history know my play book pretty well (and I'm trying to change my game vs them).

Gitiswhatitis,I'mcurioustoseehowallthisplaysoutlon gtermG

Games change. Just something to keep in mind if he's attempting to take a long term view.

GmrpessimistG

GG, no offense intended but based on your WR trajectory, it seems like you started out hot and your game has caught up to you. I've noticed I disagree with a lot of your strategy posts because you usually recommend a more passive line then I would take (and I think you miss a healthy amount of value bets). I would imagine you are rarely getting paid on your nutted hands because your player pool knows you always have it when the money goes in.

Definitely another part of the equation is that I believe I probably did run pretty well for those first ~1800 hours and so it's unfair to compare my more recent results to those since those might be inflated. Although, honestly, I kinda thought ~1800 hours was a decent sample size and so you can understand why I would continue with a if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it strategy.

At the same time, I think I'm beginning to really get a better grasp of "variance" and all the forms it takes. There are still lots and lots and lots of players in my pool where anyone shoving with the nuts on the river is going to get paid off (I see it multiple times every session); a big part of variance is who you end up on the river against when you finally do make a hand.

Would really be interesting to see Atsai's overall 14K hour graph to see the ups/downs I'm guessing he's experienced over that run.

Gstillchalkingupalargepartofthisto"variance"(admit tedly,thecrutchofeverylosingpokerplayer)G

I've tried to play dumb and ignorant when it comes to variance, telling myself things like "variance doesn't matter live, the edges are bigger, every session is different" etc. but the more hours I put in the more I notice it.

I can't say I've had a soul crushing bad streak for 6 months or anything, but the last few months have been a slog of 2 steps forward, one step back and sometimes 2 steps forward, 3 steps back. Poker has a way of constantly keeping your ego in check and knocking you down a few pegs on the totem pole.

+1

One thing I'm looking forward to in the next month (especially since I'll be sneaking in an extra daytime Friday session every week) is that the local competing neighbouring room has temporarily shut down for renovations, which means table selection will now improve in my room. Even noticed a huge difference this last session (where I saw more tables going during a day shift on a Saturday than I had all year: 3 and was 4 by the time I left).

GputteringalongG

Has it changed your mind in any way about turning pro? Or is your current hours played per week going to be the same anyways?

Do you keep a journal on the regs?

I started doing this around 3 months ago. Figuring out their ranges from various positions and what various pf sizing means should be pretty useful. Also been spending time away from the table coming up with some exploitive lines against specific regs: eg. plan to bluff raise a bet/folde, 3 bet light against the old guy who will give me too much respect, float ''one and done c betters'', double barrel the guy that calls the flop light and folds the turn, etc etc.

I feel ya. I´m down almost $5K at $1/2 in the last couple of weeks. When you start expecting to lose as the favorite, well, poker just isn´t fun anymore. Luckily I had some big wins at $2/5 and $5/10 leading up to this.

I actually went to Church on Sunday for the first time in many years. If it doesn´t help I´ll probably try another faith next Sunday.

2500bb at 1/2 just cannot be all variance.

What he doesn't tell you is that it isn't a typical 100bb 1/2 game.

For whatever reason, even though some of these posters know that their games aren't standard 100bb games, they make comparison as if they are the same.

Yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if KM had a 500ish per hour stddev. But also agree that variance wouldn't be my first guess at explaining a downswing of that size.

500max game.

I dropped 6k in 40 hours once at 2-5. The further that gets in my rear view mirror, the more it looks like spew to me.

Exactly my point.

Journals/logs are a good idea. I started taking notes on all the bad 2/5 regs I thought I'd be able to exploit and sadly many of them have disappeared. I guess I know why. The regs that remain are tougher to crack so 2/5 has been a work in progress.

What is your 2/5 and 10/10 max BI?

I guess if I had a 500 max 1/2 I would play that more often. I rarely play 1/2 anymore, once a month maybe. But my room has a 500 max 1/3 so it's fairly similar and very juicy. My 1/3 WR (limited sample size) is absolutely ridiculous and blows my 2/5 (run bad I hope) out of the water.

How often are you playing 2/5? 10/10?

Obv. I was trying to mislead everyone.

$2/5 is $1K
$5/10 is $2K

I´d say once a week on average. Honestly, I only play if I see bad $1/2 players sitting.

It hasn't changed my mind, but I do intend to put in a significantly larger number of hours at 2/5 before making a decision. At least 1,000 or so (while continuing to save from my primary job). No need to make a rash decision and jump the gun.

Are you happy in your life currently johny?

Or, you called large all-in bets ott [into an already large pot], with 45% equity & your call rep'd only ~30% of the money in the pot & you didn't win any of them?

I say the following whenever I get the chance, because I have had not had a major downswing in some time & I'm sure I'm due & I want to be prepared for it:

A poker player getting upset over the variance not going his way, when he knows in advance that it is going to happen, is like the guy who watches the weather report in the morning. There is a 90% chance of rain. He prepares to drive 25 miles to meet friends for dinner. The sky doesn't look threatening, so he doesn't take an umbrealla, much less a raincoat. When he gets to his destination, he finds himself in the parking lot in the middle of a downpour & gets a pissed off.

I use PokerJournal to track players as best as possible. I'm constantly taking notes on players while at the table and trying to compile as many interesting hands played by them so that I can get a better handle on what they're all about, and then eventually hopefully spot enough patterns so I have an ok idea of how to go about playing them in a hand. Even being able to quickly look up a player when he sits down at the table and knowing whether he is nitty vs bluffy vs etc. is helpful.

Having said that, my game overall plays quite loose / multiway. A lot of nights simply do boil down *mostly* to playing make-a-hand poker better than my opponents.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Not exactly.

Most people have accepted the fact that 90% chance of rain means that it will rain even though it isn't currently raining, because of few simple reasons 1) most people aren't trained in meteorology 2) most people perceive high likelihood the same as it is going to happen 3) most people don't care enough to register into their memory the few instances that it didn't rain.

Let's face it, average people just aren't equipped to deal with numbers and variance. Is there another aspect of our daily lives that variance is recognized and observed?

Do we think football plays are of variance and that coaches are game managers who are in charge of making +EV decisions? Heck no. We think of coaching decisions as either right or wrong and nothing in between. If a coach calls a play that ends without advancing, that coach has failed. Nobody cares that the play had the highest +EV, just that it failed.

I do not think variance is something that most players can just accept as part of the game, and that the best decision can be one that ends in a loss. When one can embrace losing just as much as winning, I believe that's when he can think above variance.

I think in terms of probabilities and variance regarding coaching decisions.

That's because you are a poker player.

The point he was making is that most 'downswings' involve bad play