Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2014, 04:23 AM   #6401
Duke0424
self-banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Desert
Posts: 13,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyLuckBox View Post
Im not sure this is correct, you are implying we are assured of going busto when playing an infinite amount of sessions, which implies that risk of ruin is always 100% when playing an infinite amount of sessions.

If this is the case why calculate ror, why even play poker in the first place, were all assured of going busto, no matter our winrate, standard deviation, or bankroll size

Risk of ruin means what is our risk of going busto, given 3 variables:
Winrate
Standard deviation
Bankroll

Lets use my numbers for example:
Wr 42
Std 292
Br 35000
And we come up with 3% ror

Now lets say i plan to play an infinite amount of sessions, but i must withdraw my winnings from my poker roll IF my roll exceeds 35000.
Also i must play the same stakes and never move down, even if my roll gets dangerously low.

This forces the equation to remain static, and the 3% ror may then project into an infinite # of sessions.

I believe in that scenario, given an infinite # of sessions, my chance of going busto would be 3%, not 100% as you claim.
He's saying that out of the millions of people who play poker, someone somewhere will have a 50 BI downswing at some point if they play an infinite number of sessions.

This is obviously not realistic since someone with even a 100 BI bankroll would probably quit poker before they lost 50 BI. But in theory, it is correct and makes sense.
Duke0424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:23 AM   #6402
pure_aggression
Pooh-Bah
 
pure_aggression's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pure Aggression on YouTube
Posts: 5,242
That 3% is assuming you reinvest all your winnings, then as your bankroll increases your ROR decreases. Or as your bankroll diminishes you ROR increases.
pure_aggression is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:25 AM   #6403
Duke0424
self-banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Desert
Posts: 13,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by IbelieveinChipKelly View Post
losing 20 straight sessions is complete preventable.

i know it's not optimal, but if i lost 19 straight, i would make sure i got a win in the 20th.

how? as soon as i had a small win booked i'd leave. it is far from optimal and i don't care if it took 15 minutes ... i'd leave.
But if you played an infinite number of sessions and tried to quit any time you got ahead, eventually you would get to 20 straight sessions where you lost your first hand.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums
Duke0424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:30 AM   #6404
ibelieveyouoweme$80k
LLSNL FF Champ '13
 
ibelieveyouoweme$80k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wentzylvania baby
Posts: 12,851
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke0424 View Post
But if you played an infinite number of sessions and tried to quit any time you got ahead, eventually you would get to 20 straight sessions where you lost your first hand.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums
yes, but i didn't say i was leaving after 1 hand, i said i was leaving after i was up $1. lol. i didn't say it made any sense either.
ibelieveyouoweme$80k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:36 AM   #6405
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

After more consideration....
Back to my dice example, maybe we are assured a 100% chance of going busto afterall? The definition of infinity is every possibility can and DOES occur, meaning rolling 1 on the dice 1000 times in a row isnt unlikely, but rather assured given we roll an infinite number of times. Damn does this mean every poker player is certain to bust their roll if they played to infinity?
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:40 AM   #6406
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by pure_aggression View Post
That 3% is assuming you reinvest all your winnings, then as your bankroll increases your ROR decreases. Or as your bankroll diminishes you ROR increases.
So hypothetically speaking, if i played an infinite number of sessions and i reinvest 100% of my winnings, i would have a 3% chance of going bust? Or is it still 100% no matter what because infinite sessions implies ill run so bad eventually that ill bust my roll?
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:42 AM   #6407
pure_aggression
Pooh-Bah
 
pure_aggression's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pure Aggression on YouTube
Posts: 5,242
Exactly every possibility will happen... infinity is a long time. That just means 1 in 33 times you will have to replenish your BR from an outside source despite being a poker player with a decent W/R.
pure_aggression is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:46 AM   #6408
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

So, does this mean that every poker player will go busto, if they play an infinite amount of sessions, no matter their winrate/sd/br, hypothetically speaking?

I know its stupid because infinite is not attainable, but if its true that you are assured of going broke playing to infinity.... Its kind of depressing to think about lol
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 05:01 AM   #6409
ibelieveyouoweme$80k
LLSNL FF Champ '13
 
ibelieveyouoweme$80k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wentzylvania baby
Posts: 12,851
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyLuckBox View Post
So, does this mean that every poker player will go busto, if they play an infinite amount of sessions, no matter their winrate/sd/br, hypothetically speaking?

I know its stupid because infinite is not attainable, but if its true that you are assured of going broke playing to infinity.... Its kind of depressing to think about lol
i think that's the point of adding your wins to your bankroll ... as your bankroll grows, your chances of going broke decrease.

if you just started with X bankroll and used your wins for hookers and blow and never added $1 to your bankroll, you would eventually bust.
ibelieveyouoweme$80k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 05:18 AM   #6410
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by IbelieveinChipKelly View Post
i think that's the point of adding your wins to your bankroll ... as your bankroll grows, your chances of going broke decrease.

if you just started with X bankroll and used your wins for hookers and blow and never added $1 to your bankroll, you would eventually bust.
Yes, but given an infinite # of sessions, we would eventually hit a downswing so hard, that we would lose our entire roll. If we played to infinity. Its kinda like my dice example, we would eventually lose it all because eventually we would hit a streak of rolling 1 that lasted so long, it would wipe our roll.
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 05:27 AM   #6411
ibelieveyouoweme$80k
LLSNL FF Champ '13
 
ibelieveyouoweme$80k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wentzylvania baby
Posts: 12,851
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

so then no player would ever make any money playing poker, so we should all just quit while we're ahead? i don't buy it.
ibelieveyouoweme$80k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 05:55 AM   #6412
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by IbelieveinChipKelly View Post
so then no player would ever make any money playing poker, so we should all just quit while we're ahead? i don't buy it.
No, its fine to play poker, because no human being can play an infinite amount of sessions. Even if you add up every human being's sessions from the history of poker till now, including all online sessions, it still would not reach infinity.

Infinity is by definition: every possible situation ocurring. Meaning eventually you will flip a coin and it will come up heads 999999999999999999999999 times in a row.

So if a poker player could play infinite sessions, eventually he would lose his entire roll because he would run his KK into AA a million times consecutively, or whatever bad beat scenario you can imagine.
Its next to impossible to occur, but if you play *infinitely* it almost surely will happen.



Think of it this way, imagine we live in an *infinite* universe.

Well that means infinite planets, solar systems, galaxies, stars, etc

Now if there are infinite planets, then Somewhere out there, there MUST exist another earth where there is an identical clone of you and me, and another earth where dinosaurs still roam the earth, and another earth where a poker deck has 51 cards instead of 52, etc etc etc

Infinity means every possibility can occur. The human mind doesnt grasp infinity quite well, i actually was confused at first myself

Dont worry though, you'll never reach infinity, so its pretty unlikely you'll get dealt KK vs AA a million times in a row

Last edited by HappyLuckBox; 02-14-2014 at 06:23 AM.
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 06:30 AM   #6413
Newyorkgrinder
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 179
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

grim in the house watch your mouth
Newyorkgrinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 10:06 AM   #6414
BradH
grinder
 
BradH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
This is a great podcast, but the relevant part starts at about 26minutes in.

RadioLab Numbers

They talk about one aspect of how the IRS watches "numbers" in your reporting to see if your tax return looks weird enough to audit you.
This was an exceptionally good listen, thanks for sharing. I've seen the Benford's used in some inventive ways (a friend used it to try and spot fraud in elections), makes total sense here.

Really the lesson is trying to dodge taxes is a bad idea.
BradH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 12:09 PM   #6415
scourrge
centurion
 
scourrge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 175
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

HappyLuckBox, you're thinking about this the wrong way imo.

Think about it like this. You flip a fair coin - 50% chance of heads, 50% chance of tails. Every time you get heads, you are paid $101. Every time you get tails, you pay $1. Your starting bankroll is $1,000. Your win-rate is (.5)($101) + (.5)(-$1) = $50/flip.

Notice that unless your very first 1,000 flips are tails, it becomes incredibly difficult for you to bust, because the amount you have to lose consecutively to bust your bankroll becomes absolutely massive. So the probability you bust (this is your R-o-R) is tiny.

This is obviously an extreme and contrived example, but it's the EXACT same idea as for someone with a positive win-rate in poker. Your way of thinking about "every possibly situation occurring" is kind of correct, in that any ordering of heads and tails will eventually occur. Even 10,000+ tails will occur at some point. But the question is, what is the probability that that sequence of 10,000 tails in a row occurs at a point when it could threaten your bankroll?
scourrge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 12:34 PM   #6416
Phatty
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,834
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

How does ROR factor in your opponents? Let's pretend you have a game with Awful Andy. Andy is so bad, he always loses. Seriously, the guy will get in $198 of his $200 stack with a royal flush and then fold for some odd reason the last $2 bet. What's with this guy? He's such an awful Andy.

On the other hand, sometimes you play against Awesome Eric. You think Phil Ivey is good? Compared to Awesome Eric, he's like an Awful Andy. Eric is like some Jedi Knight. I'm telling you, the man knows your holecards and the cards coming on the flop, turn, and river. The guy never loses. If only I could be so awesome as Awesome Eric.

In reality, we never play against either Awful Andy or Awesome Eric because no one is ever that bad or good, but we do play against ranges of people in between and I would think that should have a profound effect on winrate and ROR.
Phatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 12:42 PM   #6417
scourrge
centurion
 
scourrge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 175
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Of course it does. But you're just talking about table selection and giving the players extreme tendencies. Table selection absolutely affects win-rate and standard deviation, which are what define R-o-R (along with your bankroll) to begin with.

Edit: Re-reading your question, I'm not sure I follow actually. But basically, who you play against will affect your win-rate (how good you are relatively to the competition) and standard dev. (how volatile the game is), and these are what define R-o-R. So asking "how does R-o-R factor in your opponents" is kind of a roundabout question. It doesn't "factor it in" except by the nature of the fact that it depends on win-rate and s.d. (which, at their core, are "average" types of values over many different opponents (unless you play in the same lineup home game and you all sit in the same seats every time)).
scourrge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 01:08 PM   #6418
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by scourrge View Post
HappyLuckBox, you're thinking about this the wrong way imo.

Think about it like this. You flip a fair coin - 50% chance of heads, 50% chance of tails. Every time you get heads, you are paid $101. Every time you get tails, you pay $1. Your starting bankroll is $1,000. Your win-rate is (.5)($101) + (.5)(-$1) = $50/flip.

Notice that unless your very first 1,000 flips are tails, it becomes incredibly difficult for you to bust, because the amount you have to lose consecutively to bust your bankroll becomes absolutely massive. So the probability you bust (this is your R-o-R) is tiny.

This is obviously an extreme and contrived example, but it's the EXACT same idea as for someone with a positive win-rate in poker. Your way of thinking about "every possibly situation occurring" is kind of correct, in that any ordering of heads and tails will eventually occur. Even 10,000+ tails will occur at some point. But the question is, what is the probability that that sequence of 10,000 tails in a row occurs at a point when it could threaten your bankroll?

But Given a large enough sample size (infinity) wont that sequence almost surely occur? Obviously its an extreme hypothetical haha

Im probably just arguing semantics here.

If i could take 9trillion flips of that coin i obviously would do it in a heartbeat
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 01:29 PM   #6419
Phatty
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,834
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Yes, given enough time, a monkey sitting at a typewriter will eventually, yet randomly, type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Phatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 01:38 PM   #6420
jpsychlady
veteran
 
jpsychlady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 2,588
You guys argue about the silliest things
jpsychlady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 03:05 PM   #6421
scourrge
centurion
 
scourrge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 175
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyLuckBox View Post
But Given a large enough sample size (infinity) wont that sequence almost surely occur? Obviously its an extreme hypothetical haha

Im probably just arguing semantics here.

If i could take 9trillion flips of that coin i obviously would do it in a heartbeat
I don't think it's all that hypothetical, and it's really nothing to do with semantics. If the way you're thinking about it were correct, no one would ever make money - that can't be, in a zero-sum game, right? Yes, that particular sequence will occur. The question is how big is your bankroll at that point?

P(E) = P(flip 1,000 tails in a row in 1,000 flips) = (0.5)^1,000 = 9.33x10^(-302)

Now how many ways can that happen within the first 101,000 flips, let's say: # Ways = 101,000 - 1,000 = 100,000 ways.

P(flip 1,000 tails in a row in first 100,000 total flips) = P(E)x(# Ways) = (9.33x10^-302)x(10^5) = 9.33x10^-298

Hope this kind of illustrates the point. Like the odds that you flip 1,000 tails in a row within trillions of trillions of flips is pretty damn good. But how ****ing enormous is your bankroll by the time it does? Like we're dealing with expectations and probabilities here, you don't automatically bust if you lose a bunch in a row.

It would take approximately 10^301 flips to get to 90% probability of having had a sequence of 1,000 tails in a row at any given point. Your bankroll after just 1% of that time had passed is 10^299[($101)(.5) + (-$1)(.5)] = $5x10^300... So probably not too concerned at that point that we've lost 1,000 times in a row. Even if a I fudged a factor of 10 or something in there, it's still pretty clearly not a concern.


Another way to think about it would be: H = number of heads, T = number of tails, SB = starting bankroll. (Remember we win $100 on heads, and lose $1 on tails) So to bust our bankroll, we'd have to reach the point where:

H($100) + T(-$1) < -$SB.
T(-$1) < -$SB - H($100)
T > H(100) + SB

Just because we reach any sequence of heads and tails at some point doesn't mean we ever satisfy the above relation. There is some probability for it (the risk-of-ruin), but it's not a guarantee.

Sorry for thread derail, btw.
scourrge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 03:29 PM   #6422
HappyLuckBox
old hand
 
HappyLuckBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,489
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by scourrge View Post
I don't think it's all that hypothetical, and it's really nothing to do with semantics. If the way you're thinking about it were correct, no one would ever make money - that can't be, in a zero-sum game, right? Yes, that particular sequence will occur. The question is how big is your bankroll at that point?

P(E) = P(flip 1,000 tails in a row in 1,000 flips) = (0.5)^1,000 = 9.33x10^(-302)

Now how many ways can that happen within the first 101,000 flips, let's say: # Ways = 101,000 - 1,000 = 100,000 ways.

P(flip 1,000 tails in a row in first 100,000 total flips) = P(E)x(# Ways) = (9.33x10^-302)x(10^5) = 9.33x10^-298

Hope this kind of illustrates the point. Like the odds that you flip 1,000 tails in a row within trillions of trillions of flips is pretty damn good. But how ****ing enormous is your bankroll by the time it does? Like we're dealing with expectations and probabilities here, you don't automatically bust if you lose a bunch in a row.

It would take approximately 10^301 flips to get to 90% probability of having had a sequence of 1,000 tails in a row at any given point. Your bankroll after just 1% of that time had passed is 10^299[($101)(.5) + (-$1)(.5)] = $5x10^300... So probably not too concerned at that point that we've lost 1,000 times in a row. Even if a I fudged a factor of 10 or something in there, it's still pretty clearly not a concern.


Another way to think about it would be: H = number of heads, T = number of tails, SB = starting bankroll. (Remember we win $100 on heads, and lose $1 on tails) So to bust our bankroll, we'd have to reach the point where:

H($100) + T(-$1) < -$SB.
T(-$1) < -$SB - H($100)
T > H(100) + SB

Just because we reach any sequence of heads and tails at some point doesn't mean we ever satisfy the above relation. There is some probability for it (the risk-of-ruin), but it's not a guarantee.

Sorry for thread derail, btw.

Great stuff thanks sir
HappyLuckBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 03:35 PM   #6423
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatty View Post
Yes, given enough time, a monkey sitting at a typewriter will eventually, yet randomly, type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Something similar has already happened. It's called Fox News.
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 04:26 PM   #6424
pure_aggression
Pooh-Bah
 
pure_aggression's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pure Aggression on YouTube
Posts: 5,242
Good post scourrge, I was just responding to Happyluckbox's post #6388 where he mentions if your bankroll never grows for example you have 50 BI and you spend everything you win over 50 BI you will eventually (it might take many years) have a bad run where you lose 50BI, the scientific term for this is called being "doomswitched".

A more practical way to look at ROR is simply subtracting the amount of money you plan to spend out of your winnings. Say you win $50/hr and plan to spend $20/hr, just plug in $30/hr into the ROR formula. The $30/hr is being put back into your bankroll.
pure_aggression is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 06:04 PM   #6425
nutinsider
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 342
Discussions like this really make me wish I had my standard deviation stat. =[ would be way easier (and by easier I mean possible) to calculate my risk of ruin.
nutinsider is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive