Ha. running good is such a nice feeling indeed, enjoy it

This idea seems somewhat common. Someone even went so far as to say this is how all the pros shot-take, which is laughable.

This is not a good way to shot-take. The only reason it feels like a good idea is because when you lose the money you can rationalize it by saying you only lost a 1-2 BI for the day. In reality you've already won some $x and that's part of your bankroll. How much you already won in a day should have no influence on whether or not you take a shot.

There's nothing wrong at all with a rec player doing this for whatever reason, but it's not good bankroll management in general and shouldn't be advised.

@ Hardball - That's a sweet run!! I count 6 days of 1k+ = 6k minimum. 13 days of $200+ = 2.6k minimum. Total of 8.6k. Now add 15%, since we went with the minimum = 9.89k & let's round it down to 9.8k.

Now 21 days playing, what, 7 hours at the table? That's 147 hours. Let's round that up to 160 hours.

9.8k/160 hours = $61.25 per hour. If I guessed close to the actual, it's 3x more than a $20 per hour 'crusher!' I'm willing to bet on the 'over.'

I would be happy going for 150 hours averaging $40 per hour! Nicely done sir!!!

Too bad you're a veteran and not a newbie! Then you would have ended your post with "Is this sustainable?" instead of "Waiting to get my ass kicked due to hubris" and we all could have had a really good - !!

Thanks, but I try not to think about it in terms of an "hourly." That feels too much like a damn job, and I'd hate to think of poker as work. I consider it a profitable hobby.

Oh it will. Unfortunately. And when it does, you will lay awake in bed thinking, 'Why do I play this ****ing game? Will I ever win again?'

Disagree. If you have a reasonable bankroll, I see no reason why taking profits once in a while to shot take in a good looking lineup would be bad.

Don't use your initial buyin. Just use your profit.

It is, however, entirely within the realm of possibility that I may never, ever, until my last waking breath, be on the negative side of variance.

Right?

I hope so for you.

Just like how all the NFL athletes approach football and say "its 90% mental and 10% physical", we as winning poker players need the same mindsets. Of course to the casual observer the "10% physical" part seems ridiculous since these are world class athletes, but they are already good and know the different lies in their minds.

I think the same "its 90% mental and 10% skill/strategy" applies to poker.

Even a GREAT player that tilts at the first sign of adversity, over gambles his bankroll and/or is too nitty WILL fail.

Variance is crazy, playing just 1/2(no cap buyin)+2/5. Since the end of this downswing and over the next 110 hours, I have gone 19-2 win/loss sessions and on a 5 digit heater.

Never under estimate a small chunk of hours and try to draw conclusions.

mfw when I finally open this thread again after a few days:

wow. just wow. so much that is just wrong with this

heater = + variance
cooler = - variance

its not rocket science.

if your winrate over a large sample is X and in a session(s) you win X+Ybb/hr, that was a heater. if you lose X-Ybb/hr, that was a cooler session(s). it's the same as if you get KK against AA in the SB and BB, because the chances of that happening are 0.48% - to put it in real world numbers - assume you're heads up - for every time you get KK, it will take getting it ~200 times for the other person to have AA. so if you have KK you can be reasonable certain V doesnt have AA. if they do, it's a cooler. it's - variance.

the other stuff you mentioned is a gablers fallicy. it's why roulette wheels have the boards that show the previously hit numbers - so morons walk up and think "oh, black has hit 15 times in a row, red is due..." but in reality red has the same % chance of hitting as black does, the same % chance it had the last 15 times.

i suggest you read this link and understand it and ask questions if you don't, because from what you posted (especially about the set of 6's), you seem to not get it...

@ johnny_on_the_spot: Sorry Johnny! You were the one who didn't get it!

Everyone knows what a heater & a cooler is. I went into a facetiously semi-long diatribe, with a dual purpose. Thus, the emoticon.

One was to put force this ridiculous notion that 'heater' & 'cooler' should be replaced with a more accurate term, which I pegged as 'High +Ev Variance.'

The 2nd purpose was for the excuse to use Tommy Angelo's quote.

However, when someone opens in EP with 44, knowing damn well, that due to the table dynamic he is going to get raised the vast majority of the time & the stacks are such that there is no way he has any chance of making 8x+ his preflop investment after the expected raise, should he flop a set, solely on the basis that he's on a 'heater'.... well then, he's no different than the guy who chooses a number/color on the roulette wheel based on past events.

I live on the east coast of the U.S. So, anytime you see me having posted something like this in the early a.m. hours, you must ask yourself: Is ZuneIt being 'quacky' or serious?

Why? Who cares? That's not a "player friendly" term and not more accurate. In fact, your term is more inaccurate than "heater" or "cooler."

"+EV" refers to actions taken that are mathematically profitable. So "high +EV variance" means high variance while making profitable decisions. Not really applicable to anything meaningful.

"Heater" means running above EV; "cooler" means running below EV. Let's keep it that way.

Sorry, I've lost track who's joking and who's trolling. To clarify, I was making the point that a player on a short bankroll, and concerned about risk of ruin, would be well advised to lock in wins.

How much of a win should be locked in? Depends. But the mathematical answer and the practical answer to that question would surely clash. We can say with confidence that if you've got enough of your roll on the table that you're scared money, you should have already locked in that win.

That is way more effort than I would ever put in for sarcasm/trolling

For the record, I didn't see the emoticon in the 1st post

Well then, I guess you save all your creativity for your play then. I was not being sarcastic. I was attempting to be humorous with a dose of reality. I certainly wasn't trolling. So, wrong again.

Can't win if you're not playing.

When the objective isn't to maximize WR, answer becomes "it depends."

It gets rather complicated depending on several variables.

Biggest side effect of believing in things such as heater and luck is basically succumbing to the idea of supernatural.

Then where do you draw the line?

So you've seen my bumper sticker.

You probably purchased it from my Cafepress account.

Not necessarily true. They're mutually exclusive, but do tend to overlap. I believe in the supernatural, but don't believe in streaks, coolers and heaters.

We only spot streaks (good or bad) when we look at it from the outset and study the sample to see it goes so many SD's one way or the other.

I don't disagree, but my point is that if you have a reasonable bankroll and there's a good lineup you can shot-take without having a winning session.

Whether or not and how much you won shouldn't influence your decision unless the win puts your bankroll over the threshold where you're willing to shot-take.

If you're starting with a $1500 bankroll playing at 1|2 and win $1000 you shouldn't shot-take at a juicy 2|5 game.

If you're starting with an $8000 bankroll playing at 1|2 and you win $1000 you can shot-take in a juicy 2|5 game, but if you're willing to shot-take now you likely should have been willing to shot-take before you won that $1000. Your win changed little.

not sarcastic but humorous with a dose of reality, huh?. kinda like the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny, which is literally the definition of sarcasm... but not sarcastic.

obviously i was wrong again...

Xpost from new PGC:



These are my 2/5 results for 2014 and 2015. This is primarily Charles Town and Maryland Live!

if this helps you psychologically for some reason than w/e that's fine. But differentiating between your initial buyin and your profit means absolutely nothing in reality.