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 10-04-2016, 02:03 AM   #16326
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

People say 10bb/hr at a live game is a good winrate.

If you play 25 hands an hour, you therefore have a 40bb/100 WR (which I'm pretty certain is impossible but let's roll with it).

According to pokerdope, Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin is 183 BB.
According to pokerdope, 0% chance of losing $ after 1k hours

Either one (or several) of these claims are wrong: that you can win 10bb/hour in live games, that you get 25 hands per hour in live games, or that you need a 50BI roll for live games...
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 02:31 AM   #16327
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Maybe my primitive brain doesn't see the connection, but I would think there is zero or very little correlation between win rate and variance. For starters, "win rate" means absolutely nothing moving forward - all it does is tell you your observed win rate over x # of hands given game dynamics y and z.
Unless you play in the exact same games with the exact same players and run at the exact same level above or below EV in the exact same spots as previously observed than you are talking about derivative of derivative levels of correlation.

If a guy only plays flush draws and shoves them on the flop every time and has hit 50% of his flush draws lifetime vs. a 33% expectation then he is running well above expectation. How could you possibly say his play style is "lower variance" then a guy that plays a much more conservative game and has a lower win rate but is running severely below expectation lifetime.

Win rate is a function of many factors but it doesn't influence your variance. Variance is the input and win rate is the output. Or said differently, win rate is a function of decision making + the derivative variance. Your play style/decision making has EV outcomes which are influenced by variance which then has a major effect on your win rate output.

Last edited by johnnyBuz; 10-04-2016 at 02:42 AM.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 02:33 AM   #16328
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
but I would think there is zero or very little correlation between win rate and variance.
Win rate is the single largest factor that influences variance. Run sims for a 20bb/100 WR and a 2bb/100 WR and look at the massive difference in breakeven/losing stretches (i.e. downswings).

Quote:
Win rate is a function of many factors but it doesn't influence your variance.
Yeah, once again couldn't be more wrong there.
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 02:40 AM   #16329
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

This is a 20bb/100 WR (i.e. good live reg)




This is a 2bb/100 WR (i.e. avg/good online reg)



The only difference here is the winrate input. If you played 25 million hours of live poker w a 20bb/100 WR, you'll go on a -4.5BI downswing on avg once. Whereas, the player w a 2bb/100 WR will go on a downswing 10 times that size on avg once.
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 03:09 AM   #16330
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,122
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
Win rate is the single largest factor that influences variance. Run sims for a 20bb/100 WR and a 2bb/100 WR and look at the massive difference in breakeven/losing stretches (i.e. downswings).



Yeah, once again couldn't be more wrong there.
Bip! just murdered the thread with a bunch of great posts including one explaining how to use the term 'variance' correctly. I would re-read everything he said in the past couple pages (or everything he's said ever. That guy spouts some quality stuff)

The terms 'variance' and 'downswing' are not interchangeable.

It seems to me that there is not much correlation between variance and win-rate. Mathematically magnitude of variance is independent of magnitude of win-rate.
browni3141 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 03:13 AM   #16331
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Meals, you are assuming game conditions remain exactly the same as your previous results which is simply not true. An input (variance) cannot be influenced by an output (win rate). That is called a circular logic loop and anyone with experience with MS Excel is familiar with it. Variance is a "Random Walk Down Wall Street" that is influenced only by a random number generator aka a DeckMate shuffler.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 03:57 AM   #16332
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Another way of thinking about is like the stock market. If your have ever read a prospectus the bold face type says past performance is not indicative of future results. Just because a stock has returned 20% per annum for the last five years (aka your "observed poker win rate") does not mean it will continue returning 20% per annum in the future. Modeling out future results based on a previously observed win rate is a pointless excercise because the previous years' returns were influenced by random variance in the market which can and will be completely different in the future. A win rate simply tells you how you performed in the past given he circumstances, nothing more.

If you want more finance analogies, your win rate is the equivalent of the balance sheet which gives you a snapshot high level picture of where you stand at a particular point in time whereas the income statement or cash flow statement tells you how you are performing in the current ongoing operating environment.

Last edited by johnnyBuz; 10-04-2016 at 04:04 AM.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:08 AM   #16333
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 meale View Post
People say 10bb/hr at a live game is a good winrate.

If you play 25 hands an hour, you therefore have a 40bb/100 WR (which I'm pretty certain is impossible but let's roll with it).

According to pokerdope, Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin is 183 BB.
According to pokerdope, 0% chance of losing $ after 1k hours

Either one (or several) of these claims are wrong: that you can win 10bb/hour in live games, that you get 25 hands per hour in live games, or that you need a 50BI roll for live games...
Dude, that's not even two buyins. That can't be correct.
ibelieveyouoweme$80k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:18 AM   #16334
AsianNit
banned
 
AsianNit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,887
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
People say 10bb/hr at a live game is a good winrate.

If you play 25 hands an hour, you therefore have a 40bb/100 WR (which I'm pretty certain is impossible but let's roll with it).

According to pokerdope, Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin is 183 BB.
According to pokerdope, 0% chance of losing $ after 1k hours

Either one (or several) of these claims are wrong: that you can win 10bb/hour in live games, that you get 25 hands per hour in live games, or that you need a 50BI roll for live games...
My guess is that you did not enter a realistic standard deviation.
AsianNit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:36 AM   #16335
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,551
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
The only difference here is the winrate input. If you played 25 million hours of live poker w a 20bb/100 WR, you'll go on a -4.5BI downswing on avg once. Whereas, the player w a 2bb/100 WR will go on a downswing 10 times that size on avg once.
You're falling victim for what what bip and I said earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegrassplayer View Post
Very few people use the word "variance" to mean how far you are currently from your true win rate. It's mostly used to mean the (mostly negative) swings in your bankroll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
Variance gets misused as a term a ton.

It simply means deviation from expected (average) result.

But a lot of people use variance to mean "downswing". It is a term that might be misused more often than it is used correctly.

Your graphs just show a result, they don't show the variance of different outcomes.




If you look at the two graphs you'll notice that each graph has a lot of lines (potential outcomes) both above and below the dotted line (average winrate).

Where people get confused is that most of the lines are always winning over the sample size for the 8 bb winner and are still going up for the most part. Therefore their swing doesn't seem as bad, however if they are only winning 2 bbs for a long stretch that's still far below their expected value of 8 bbs for that stretch.

However for the -1bb loser (ideally this would be a winrate of 0, but too lazy to make another), half the lines are in the negative,therefore they are very aware that they are running below ev.

When people look at variance they focused on the X-axis when they should be focused on the dotted line.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:38 AM   #16336
cuserounder
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
cuserounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coast
Posts: 8,201
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianNit View Post
My guess is that you did not enter a realistic standard deviation.
+1. He's not even close on SD. ~75-100 bb/hr would be realistic, which is anywhere from 250-400 bb/100 depending on how many hands per hour you estimate (25-30).

There are also very complex factors to calculate for that differ from online, which factor in greatly to bankroll requirements. I've played in 2/5 games that play as big as a 10/25, and 5/T games that play smaller than a normal 2/5. I used to have a regular 1/2 game that played more like a 5/T.

Plugging the numbers into a formula is a place to start, but it's not the end all be all of bankroll management for live poker.
cuserounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:41 AM   #16337
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Thanks Bip and JohnnyBuz and bluegrassplayer I think it all makes more sense to me now.

Basically poker players are frequently conflating variables from a mathematical model of poker with their actual real world poker skills and then cognitive dissonance makes it difficult for them to unpick the model from reality.

Win rate = a measure of my innate but laboriously honed poker genius = persistent reality = means of deciding who is the best.

Variance = downswing = bad luck = anything getting in the way of my rightful winrate.

Risk of ruin = never going to happen


In reality there's just the cards, your decisions and your opponents' decisions. Everything else is a simplified model of reality used in an attempt to understand which are the better decisions ahead of time and thereby increase your chance of coming out ahead in the long run.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 04:45 AM   #16338
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,551
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

How big of a bankroll do I need to move up stakes?



Ultimately moving up stakes and bankroll requirements depends more on personal circumstances. It's rare but there's people out there who should skip 1 2 altogether and just jump into 2 5. Usually they have income to replenish their roll if things don't go well and are good enough that they'd be wasting their time at 1 2.

There's others who might have grinded out 100 buy ins for 2 5 by playing 1 2 and they still might not be ready skillwise to move up.

Also not everyone has a lot of options. If the only games offered near you are 1 2 or 5 10... well surely you aren't going to Grind out 250 buy ins at 1 2 before taking a shot.

Trying to have a steadfast rule "x buy ins to play this game" is pretty ridiculous because looking at someone's personal circumstances and making a decision that suits them and only them is neither that difficult nor time consuming. The most imoprtant thing is that you have enough buy ins that you can comfortably play your best.


Should I include tips/food paid for with chips/bad beat jackpots etc. when calculating my winrate?


Answer: It's typically assumed that when someone posts a winrate that tips ARE included, and most likely small purchases too. It's safe to assume that no one is eating a 60 dollar meal every session, paying for it with chips and still winning at $85/ hour. Winning a bad beat jackpot, or other forms of rakeback such as high hands etc. are usually not included.

However, when calculating your winrate/hourly for yourself you are free to do whatever you want. If you want to take meticulous notes on how you are doing in your player pool then it's best to not calculate tips and to pay for meals out of pocket. Some players even calculate the rake they pay. That way you know exactly what your winrate is, how much the rake is taking out, and you can compare your winrate to other winrates in different locations.

If you are more concerned with how much you make/spend on trips to the casino then include any expenses that you feel are necessary and include a bad beat jackpot or a high hand etc, but be sure to factor that in if you decide to compare your stats with someone else's. Ultimately your winrate is being recorded for you so feel free to record it in whatever way makes sense for you.



Do winning players experience less variance?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
Variance gets misused as a term a ton.

It simply means deviation from expected (average) result.

But a lot of people use variance to mean "downswing". It is a term that might be misused more often than it is used correctly.







If you look at the two graphs you'll notice that each graph has a lot of lines (potential outcomes) both above and below the dotted line (average winrate).

Where people get confused is that most of the lines are always winning over the sample size for the 8 bb winner and are still going up for the most part. Therefore their swing doesn't seem as bad, however if they are only winning 2 bbs for a long stretch that's still far below their expected value of 8 bbs for that stretch.

However for the -1bb loser (ideally this would be a winrate of 0, but too lazy to make another), half the lines are in the negative,therefore they are very aware that they are running below ev.

When people look at variance they are focused on the X-axis when they should be focused on the dotted line.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:02 AM   #16339
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
Unhappy re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder View Post
+1. He's not even close on SD. ~75-100 bb/hr would be realistic, which is anywhere from 250-400 bb/100 depending on how many hands per hour you estimate (25-30).

There are also very complex factors to calculate for that differ from online, which factor in greatly to bankroll requirements. I've played in 2/5 games that play as big as a 10/25, and 5/T games that play smaller than a normal 2/5. I used to have a regular 1/2 game that played more like a 5/T.

Plugging the numbers into a formula is a place to start, but it's not the end all be all of bankroll management for live poker.
Err my sims were using a sd of 70 which is perfectly reasonable for 9-10 handed live FR if you play a tighter strat.

Everyone ITT seems to be obfuscating the definition of variance. You play 1k hours with a 5bb/hr WR and your buddy plays 1k hours with a 15bb/hr wr. Both with 70 sd. Yes, technically you and your buddy should deviate from your EV the same amount but the way in which this manifests (I.e. much longer swings) is an aspect of variance that shouldn't be ignored imo. You, as a direct result of your lower WR, will experience several long back to back breakeven/losing months. Your buddy won't. Yes mathematically the sdev doesn't change but in any practical sense, WR does directly affect variance (which is a term that encompasses more than just whether you run above/below EV).
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:06 AM   #16340
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Another way of thinking about it is like this:

In 2015, Steph Curry averaged 30 points per game ("observed win rate") with sample size 'n=80' ("sessions played") and a standard deviation of 9.7 ("square root of variance").

The starting lineup in 2015 was: H. Barnes · A. Bogut · S. Curry · D. Green · K. Thompson

68% of the time (1 Sd.Dev), Steph scored between 20.3 and 39.7 points per game
95% of the time (2 Sd.Dev), Steph scored between 10.6 and 49.4 points per game
99.8% of the time (3 Sd.Dev), Steph scored between 1 and 59.1 points per game

If we were going to model out Curry's variance in 2016, would we use the observed values from 2015? Of course not! We would have to model out some incredibly complex Monte Carlo simulation combining less useful past performance with incredibly opaque future projections.

The variable conditions ("starting lineup" , "changes in other teams' rosters" , "changes in schedule" , "changes in Steph's health" , "changes in Steph's teammates health" , "changes in opponent's health") are so far beyond a static constant that we cannot even begin to consider using Curry's 2015 PPG average to model 2016 results.

The projected starting lineup in 2016 is: K. Durant · Z. Pachulia · S. Curry · D. Green · K. Thompson

And basketball is something I consider infinitely easier to model then the complexities in an ever changing poker environment. We can be reasonably assured that the Warriors will average somewhere between 100-110 points per game and Curry will average somewhere between his career average 22 PPG and career high 30 PPG. The biggest source of "variance" in 2016 will be the added presence of Kevin Durant and continued development of Klay Thompson which will likely push Curry's average down to the 22-25 PPG range.

The point being: past performance is not indicative of future results. Using past performance to model future variance is nonsensical because future variance (in the context of poker hand outcomes) is completely random and not based off anything that has occurred in the past.

Last edited by johnnyBuz; 10-04-2016 at 05:23 AM.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:12 AM   #16341
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Meale: if winrate and variance aren't actual things in reality but merely measures of what happened at a macro level over a period of time does it make sense to say "winrate affects variance"?

What you're actually describing above in terms of variables in a model of reality is a reality where one player makes fewer good decisions and therefore wins less when the cards are favourable, loses more when the cards are unfavourable and suffers longer breakeven and losing periods as a result.

The only thing that can truly be said to affect anything are the decisions made and the fall of the cards. All other variables are modelling some higher level outcome of decisions+cards. The varable in the model are correlated with each other but non of them cause anything.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:16 AM   #16342
AsianNit
banned
 
AsianNit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,887
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
Err my sims were using a sd of 70 which is perfectly reasonable for 9-10 handed live FR if you play a tighter strat.

Everyone ITT seems to be obfuscating the definition of variance. You play 1k hours with a 5bb/hr WR and your buddy plays 1k hours with a 15bb/hr wr. Both with 70 sd. Yes, technically you and your buddy should deviate from your EV the same amount but the way in which this manifests (I.e. much longer swings) is an aspect of variance that shouldn't be ignored imo. You, as a direct result of your lower WR, will experience several long back to back breakeven/losing months. Your buddy won't. Yes mathematically the sdev doesn't change but in any practical sense, WR does directly affect variance (which is a term that encompasses more than just whether you run above/below EV).
Pokerdope gives me a bankroll requirement of 2936BB if you use a SD of 280 BB/100 (70 BB/hour, assuming 25 hands per hour) and 183BB if you use a SD of 70 BB/100.

My guess is that it is unrealistic to have a SD of less than twice your win rate.
AsianNit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:30 AM   #16343
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragequit99 View Post
Meale: if winrate and variance aren't actual things in reality but merely measures of what happened at a macro level over a period of time does it make sense to say "winrate affects variance"?

What you're actually describing above in terms of variables in a model of reality is a reality where one player makes fewer good decisions and therefore winsyes less when the cards are favourable, loses more when the cards are unfavourable and suffers longer breakeven and losing periods as a result.

The only thing that can truly be said to affect anything are the decisions made and the fall of the cards. All other variables are modelling some higher level outcome of decisions+cards. The varable in the model are correlated with each other but non of them cause anything.
Yes. If the result of the essentially poor play lead to longer lasting downswings/BE stretches, we can say while this player is losing, they're experiencing negative variance. If they lose for longer, the presence of this negative variance has a larger toll on mental game etc.

I understand the difference mathematically that above posters have been trying to mention, I e. Past results not indicating future results. But that's like saying we can't say someone who won for a mill hours at 50bb/hr will continue to win. Ofc they will. But this is just because we disagree about the definition of variance.
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 05:31 AM   #16344
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Also asiannit ye my bad I forgot to multiply sdev by 4 lmao
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 06:50 AM   #16345
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,518
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
People say 10bb/hr at a live game is a good winrate.

If you play 25 hands an hour, you therefore have a 40bb/100 WR (which I'm pretty certain is impossible but let's roll with it).

According to pokerdope, Minimum bankroll for less than 5% risk of ruin is 183 BB.
According to pokerdope, 0% chance of losing $ after 1k hours

Either one (or several) of these claims are wrong: that you can win 10bb/hour in live games, that you get 25 hands per hour in live games, or that you need a 50BI roll for live games...
It's a bit more than 30 hands an hour for sure, let's say 32-33 hands per hour. So it's more like 30bb/100.

Quote:
I think short stacking does increase variance due to short stackers paying so much more of their profit to the rake.
This is a wrong use of the term variance. Variance means deviation from your mean expected, whereas you mean variance in yhid instance to mean your expected WR.

In general, what a lot of people are saying when they are talking of increased variance is that when you have a lower WR, negative deviation from your expected WR will move you to a temporary losing hourly more often than if your expected WR was higher. Which is true.

But IMO, when the term variance should be used to describe how swingy is your game, the idea that you will have bigger winning and bigger losing sessions than one who's game produces less variance.

Last edited by OvertlySexual; 10-04-2016 at 06:59 AM.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 07:14 AM   #16346
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,551
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, I did not mean expected WR, I meant variance. I'm fully aware what the terms mean. (You can read my other posts on this page)

When figuring out potential outcomes, like the ones I posted, assumptions are made regarding rake; basically that the rake remains constant throughout these runs. This is pretty true for deep stack (although not 100% and especially not for live poker), but not so much with short stacks. I'm convinced that the difference in rake leads to lower lows for short stackers, as well as higher highs resulting in higher standard deviation and being less likely to be near your mean in any given sample.

Last edited by Bluegrassplayer; 10-04-2016 at 07:25 AM.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 07:40 AM   #16347
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Paying more % rake (as a short stack has to) will just mean lower winrate. Variance won't be increased and lows will still be not as low in absolute terms as deep stack because you can't lose as much as quickly short stacked.

Are we all agreed your risk of ruin is lower short stacked assuming you are able to actually win?
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 07:46 AM   #16348
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
I understand the difference mathematically that above posters have been trying to mention, I e. Past results not indicating future results. But that's like saying we can't say someone who won for a mill hours at 50bb/hr will continue to win. Ofc they will. But this is just because we disagree about the definition of variance.
I don't know, someone could only get that win rate in extreme conditions e.g. play money tables. They certainly could lose if those extreme conditions changed.

Indeed I'm sure there are many players who posted long winning periods online back in the early 2000's and went on to lose and give up poker all together as the games got tougher and they failed to keep up.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 08:27 AM   #16349
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,518
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

From wikipedia:
Quote:

In probability theory and statistics, variance is the expectation of the squared deviation of a random variable from its mean, and it informally measures how far a set of (random) numbers are spread out from their mean.
There's a ton of posts talking about variance where what they mean is either Win Rate or Downswing. To use the Steph Curry posted above, what is difficult to calculate is his PPG, not his variance. That is the deviation he 'll experience from his PPG will in all likelihood remain the same.

And yeah, if your argument is that the rake is higher as a proportion of your stack, then what is affected is your WR, not your variance which as a deviation will stay more or less the same.

Now, may be as a shortstacker, you may experience higher variance than someone who plays deep, because you get to more showdowns. But that's a different argument.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 08:31 AM   #16350
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

People always reference 25 hands/hr. I dont know where this number comes from. Ive sat and counted on several different occasions over 3 straight days each time (about 12 hrs each time) and every time Ive gotten between 35-42 hands/hr.

Maybe its slower at 1/2 where more people see the flop. Not sure about that.
MikeStarr 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 11:30 AM.


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