Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Two Plus Two Forums
[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

03-07-2016 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
In long term who has worse swings, 10bb winrates or 4bb? Long term being 1k hours or more
It's a really bad question.

In a less than optimal game condition in which winning big is much harder than losing big, then I am pretty sure 10bb/hr winner has fewer bad swings.

In an optimal condition, it could easily be either one.
03-07-2016 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by N3uromant3 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Same I am doing right now.. Over one year doing it.. currently my hourly winning at poker are bigger than my net hourly pay at work. I would consider turning into full time pp if and only if my hourly winning reaches the gross hourly pay over an huge sample.. does it make sense to you? Same strategy?

It makes sense yes. I mean, playing fulltime is another ballpark, and i believe thats a big decisison to make for any person- crusher or not. There is always the option of just try playing fulltime for a period of time, and see how you like it. Nothing is written in stone right, so there is always the option of going back to get a job again if fulltime poker isnt what you imagined.


I mean for me, just the sheer stressfree type of life you can have when working 50 percent to cover your important expences every month is worth so much. Not just the risk free money incoming, but also having collegues, and some sort of ancor in your day to day life.
03-07-2016 , 03:24 PM
Nah it's an easy question you just don't know what you're talking about
03-07-2016 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Nah it's an easy question you just don't know what you're talking about
Yep, you're right...
03-07-2016 , 03:30 PM
I think you should spend some time learning about this stuff before you act as if you have all the answers when you clearly don't.

Spend some time on here and look at the variance between winrates

http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

In regards to your answer and statistics of course a smaller win rate could have less swings, but we can say with a high level of confidence that higher winrate(slope) has less swings over the long term than a lower winrate.

Can we see your graphs and results, maybe see what happened with yours?
03-07-2016 , 03:34 PM
That's impossible to say. It could be 400 up and 100 down or 4000 up 3700 down.
03-07-2016 , 03:34 PM
So you already have the answers and you're here to test me or something?

Of course I don't have all the answers, but I do have a clear rational thought process and I can easily identify where my thought process may be incorrect.
03-07-2016 , 03:37 PM
It's like when you ask someone to explain a mathematical idea and you see that they can't. Yes I know the answer, I wanted to see if you did and then I happens to use google to make sure I was correct. There is a great variance simulator on that site and it will show you exactly how extreme the swings are between High and low winrateS. Check it out. Learn. Admit you're wrong and grow

Last edited by VolumeKing; 03-07-2016 at 03:41 PM. Reason: In b4 I'm wrong
03-07-2016 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
It's like when you ask someone to explain a mathematical idea and you see that they can't.
I know what I can and answer only those that I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Yes I know the answer, I wanted to see if you did and then I happens to use google to make sure I was correct.
You have access to the answer, but that's not the same as knowing the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
There is a great variance simulator on that site and it will show you exactly how extreme the swings are between High and low winrateS. Check it out. Learn. Admit you're wrong and grow
See, you're already demonstrating that you don't understand it.

Think about it this way:

If a guy never wins or loses any money after 1000 sessions, his variance is effectively 0, and so is his WR.
03-07-2016 , 03:42 PM
This has turned bizarre quickly. Can we talk about sled hockey?
03-07-2016 , 03:46 PM
FWIW, my credential is my GMAT score .

Me no advance math, but me know good enough math.
03-07-2016 , 03:56 PM
beautiful thing about math is that credentials don't matter, only matters that the equation balances


I would also pose this question. For which winrate (10bb or 4bb)would you need a larger bankroll, and why?
03-07-2016 , 04:01 PM
LOL, I know where this is going.

I think we already had the "good players don't need big roll" argument some pages back. Feel free to search.

Once again, your thought process is convoluted.

You're confused by the idea of RoR (risk of ruin) and idea of maxing WR coupling with variance.

Naturally a 10bb/hr winner comparing vs a 4bb/hr winner will need smaller roll to avoid busto, but that's not the context we have been discussing.

I think bip! was right in this instance. You are confusing "downswing" with variance.
03-07-2016 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
In long term who has worse swings, 10bb winrates or 4bb? Long term being 1k hours or more

4bb of course. Is this a level?
03-07-2016 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by feel wrath Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
4bb of course. Is this a level?
FWIW, this isn't true.

4bb/hr winner could have no swings...
03-07-2016 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
In long term who has worse swings, 10bb winrates or 4bb? Long term being 1k hours or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
It's a really bad question.

In a less than optimal game condition in which winning big is much harder than losing big, then I am pretty sure 10bb/hr winner has fewer bad swings.

In an optimal condition, it could easily be either one.
I wanted to see what people thought
03-07-2016 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
In long term who has worse swings, 10bb winrates or 4bb? Long term being 1k hours or more
Trick question, nobody itt only wins 4bb / hr
03-07-2016 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
FWIW, this isn't true.



4bb/hr winner could have no swings...

All we have to deal with is the question though (nothing about playing styles) and all other things remaining equal a guy that wins at 10bb an hour will have fewer downswings than somebody winning at 4 bb hr because the card and other variance train has to hit them on average 6bb hr harder for them to lose money
03-07-2016 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by feel wrath Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
All we have to deal with is the question though (nothing about playing styles) and all other things remaining equal a guy that wins at 10bb an hour will have fewer downswings than somebody winning at 4 bb hr because the card and other variance train has to hit them on average 6bb hr harder for them to lose money

Again that's not true...

If the 4bb guy somehow cashes out exactly 4bb ahead every time, he would have zero downswing.

Maybe we need a COTM on variance.
03-07-2016 , 04:36 PM
Thats a good idea RP, variance is an interesting topic for sure. If you would do i COTM article writeup on variance, i would be happy to read it and participate in the discussion.
03-07-2016 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spikeraw22 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Didn't know they had wheel chair hockey.
Lol.

One team I'm on plays on a rink designed for sled hockey (no lips on the benches entering the ice surface, seats far back from the semi-transparent boards, etc.). They're often playing before our game, cripes it looks like a lotta work.

GnowbacktoyourregularlyscheduledprogrammingG
03-07-2016 , 04:41 PM
How pedantic can you get RP?

Maybe the line is moving up and down the same amount, but the bigger winner is going to be winning during a downswing more often.
03-07-2016 , 04:42 PM
My bad for putting some thoughts into these questions...

Lol.

And you are still missing the point. There are many LLSNL players who cannot win at high WR not because they lose more often.
03-07-2016 , 04:44 PM
You're not though. You're just being pedantic and arguing a nonpoint to be confrontational.
03-07-2016 , 04:48 PM
Was I wrong that they're wrong?

Lower WR does not mean having experienced worse swings. Is it really hard to understand that?

If that's understood, then you realize that the question is non-sensical.

      
m