Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
Comparing online to live poker is fundamentally flawed, with the exception that they are both played with cards they are completely different.
This is ridiculous. Poker math is poker math, whether live or online. The odds, for example, of losing 8 flips in a row, are exactly the same. The probability that you'll go 0 for 5 on flush draws is exactly the same.
Higher win rates live do mean that, on average, downswings will be smaller live than online. But that's accounted for in the fact that we are talking about swings in the neighborhood of 8-10 buy ins, which online players hardly even notice. Online winning players routinely experience downswings of 20, 30 or 40 buy ins, because their edges are smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
Me saying "I run pretty bad" was a joke.
I didn't get that from your post at all, but, ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
I posting shortly after that I am likely on the positive side of variance, if I'm on the negative it is not by much.
There's no way you're on the negative side of variance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
I also think you, like many other people do, are using the term "downswing" incorrectly.
Saying I went on a x buyin downswing should mean that you lost x amount of buyins in 100% of situations that are completely out of your control, or that you had the best hand/an unavoidable cooler in each spot. It should also reference that the size of your bets is close to optimal in situations where you need to be getting value from the best hand.
Losing 2 buyins set over set, then tilt shoving 2 draws in terrible spots is not a 4 buy-in downswing. It's a 2 buyin downswing with you donking off 2 buyins as a result of previous negative variance.
This whole section just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
A downswing is a downswing; it's an after-the-fact evaluation of what happened in the last X hands you played.
Second, if I tilt shove 2 flush draws, I didn't spew off 2 buy ins, I spewed off 1.3 buy ins--DUCY? JFC.
Third, even if I grant your definition that a downswing excludes tilt, an 8 buy in downswing is still guaranteed in a big enough sample. Hell, online, I had a 4 buy in downswing in under 20 hands--I was 12 tabling, got set over setted on 3 of them simultaneously, and within an orbit ran KK into AA AIPF.
Online, I had a -35 buy in downswing in 35k hands that included losing 13 of 15 times I got all in with a set on the flop or turn against an overpair.
Live, in June of 2011, during my 11 buy in downswing, I got all in 19 times. I never had worse than 47% equity (AK against JJ), and only won 3 of the 19.
If something like this has never happened to you, it's just because your sample is ridiculously small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
I shouldn't really use the word "impossible" because it is certainly incorrect and overgeneralizing. I will reword it to highly, highly and unlikely, and if it does happen, chances are there are spots of bad play in the 8 buyin "downswing", whether or not you can recognize this, or how to recognize this is a completely different discussion.
You really just don't understand variance. "Highly unlikely," by definition, is
exactly the same as "guaranteed to happen in a big enough sample."
So again, the fact that you haven't had a big downswing means either that your sample is small or you've run good. It could mean both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha
Fwiw, my live sample is 1200hrs total. I am running at 66$/hr over my last 600 hrs, 50$/hr over 800+ hours of 2/5, 260hrs of 1/2 and <100hrs of 5/10.
<shrug> In your place, I'd be confident I was a winner, but I'd have ~0 idea what my actual win rate was.
But I didn't come in this thread to challenge your results, or your WR or to tell you you're running good.
You just said something that is mathematically silly--that a -8 buy in downswing is impossible for a big winner. And I'm just saying that that statement is ridiculous.