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 10-07-2016, 11:24 AM   #16451
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Regarding WR and SD helping out predicting what type of downswing we could possibly go on...

... isn't this making a major assumption that the game conditions we've collected all of our data in up to this point remain the same?

And since we know that game conditions *probably* won't remain the same, aren't these stats *almost* rendered kinda useless with regards to predicting the future?

GknowsexactlywhatI'vedonetothispoint;haszeroconfid encetheymeanmuchofanythingmovingforwardG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 11:34 AM   #16452
KatoKrazy
Pooh-Bah
 
KatoKrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,226
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
depends on buyin cap. 25k if it's a one-off 1k cap. if you're buying in 2k, then like 30-35k. If you're buying in for 2-2.5k regularly, 50k roll
We have no idea what your winrate is. If you aren't a winning player, then you need an infinite roll.
KatoKrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 11:49 AM   #16453
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,514
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
And I don't play tourney, so please enlighten me the difference between chip EV+ and $EV+.
When we play cash, chip EV and $EV is one and the same. So our decisions are easy. The action that makes me the most chips is the one that makes me the more money and so that's what I do.

In tournaments this isn't the case. The money we make depend on our finishing place. This means that in many spots in a tournament, we are faced decisions where chip EV isn't the only thing that matters because our $EV depends on what other players not in the hand will do after the hand.

To give an example. Let's say we are in a tournament paying 15 places with 16 runners left. You are second in chips in the BB. There's a crippled stort-stack with half a BB left UTG. The chip leader is in the SB and he shoves at you. If it's a strictly chip EV+, you calculate that he may be shoving anywhere from 50 to 100% of his hands, so you call him with 20 to 40% of your hands. However, even though you may win more chips in doing so, you don't win more money because chances are that if you fold, the short-stack will get knocked soon enough and you will get ITM. Since the short stack getting knocked out in one of the next few hands happens significantly more times than the times you call and lose the SB shove, calling is chip EV+ but not $ EV+.

But that's not an issue of variance. It's isn't an issue of being able to withstand the ups and downs of the variance train. It's an EV calculation pure and simple.

That's what ICM -the Independent Chip Model- is all about. It's pretty complicated and it's probably impossible to know at each spot the difference between chip EV and $EV, but it's foolish not to take it into account at all.

Last edited by OvertlySexual; 10-07-2016 at 11:57 AM.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 12:13 PM   #16454
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
When we play cash, chip EV and $EV is one and the same. So our decisions are easy. The action that makes me the most chips is the one that makes me the more money and so that's what I do.
Most of the time. There are definitely spots in a cash game where keeping a whale happy and spewing are +EV that might not be in a vacuum. Not as common as in tournaments where ICM is almost always a concern of course.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 01:24 PM   #16455
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
When we play cash, chip EV and $EV is one and the same. So our decisions are easy. The action that makes me the most chips is the one that makes me the more money and so that's what I do.

In tournaments this isn't the case. The money we make depend on our finishing place. This means that in many spots in a tournament, we are faced decisions where chip EV isn't the only thing that matters because our $EV depends on what other players not in the hand will do after the hand.
That's the point I was making why "avoiding variance" is as much about evaluating whether a hand is +EV as whether one's financial situation is able to bear the burden of the risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
But that's not an issue of variance. It's isn't an issue of being able to withstand the ups and downs of the variance train. It's an EV calculation pure and simple.
We're talking about the same thing, perhaps you missed the context.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 03:31 PM   #16456
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Regarding WR and SD helping out predicting what type of downswing we could possibly go on...

... isn't this making a major assumption that the game conditions we've collected all of our data in up to this point remain the same?

And since we know that game conditions *probably* won't remain the same, aren't these stats *almost* rendered kinda useless with regards to predicting the future?

GknowsexactlywhatI'vedonetothispoint;haszeroconfid encetheymeanmuchofanythingmovingforwardG
Yes it is and yes they are. That's why I don't mind that I can't remember what happened more than a few weeks ago
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 03:41 PM   #16457
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
That was also my point.

In a tourney, it makes sense to avoid thin spots in which your tournament life is on the line. Same can be said about someone with really small BR.

So the idea of avoiding variance actually has a very wide range depending on each person's financial circumstance, more so than the EV of an individual hand.

Thus this quote is amazing in a very subtle way:
You really like that whole "force variance on them to force a fold thing".

What are your thoughts on this...

I let people in my game know I'm on a short roll and that I want to avoid going broke.

Then I merrily call the aggro players down till they twig that I'm not actually weak/tight.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:17 PM   #16458
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I have mixed feelings about aggressive shot taking. On the one hand, you can move up rather quickly without taking a whole lot of risk. On the other hand, once you move up, it's very difficult for one's ego to move back down, and one's hourly may be higher at the lower level.

I think I'd advise experienced players who have had success at the higher levels before (but aren't rolled for it right now) to take aggressive shots to move up. However, for newer players it's probably more beneficial to put in lots of hours at their current stakes and build their roll up first (because they will become a better poker player in the process).
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:22 PM   #16459
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

^ sounds sensible to me.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:40 PM   #16460
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Yea, it's interesting to see players that "play $2/5" and refuse to sit at a $1/2 table, or do but ***** and then leave as soon as a $/25 seat opens, even if the $1/2 game is *significantly* better. A smart player would be stake agnostic and just pick the juiciest table with the biggest whale.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:43 PM   #16461
cAmmAndo
The Situation
 
cAmmAndo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,712
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
When we play cash, chip EV and $EV is one and the same. So our decisions are easy. The action that makes me the most chips is the one that makes me the more money and so that's what I do.

In tournaments this isn't the case. The money we make depend on our finishing place. This means that in many spots in a tournament, we are faced decisions where chip EV isn't the only thing that matters because our $EV depends on what other players not in the hand will do after the hand.

To give an example. Let's say we are in a tournament paying 15 places with 16 runners left. You are second in chips in the BB. There's a crippled stort-stack with half a BB left UTG. The chip leader is in the SB and he shoves at you. If it's a strictly chip EV+, you calculate that he may be shoving anywhere from 50 to 100% of his hands, so you call him with 20 to 40% of your hands. However, even though you may win more chips in doing so, you don't win more money because chances are that if you fold, the short-stack will get knocked soon enough and you will get ITM. Since the short stack getting knocked out in one of the next few hands happens significantly more times than the times you call and lose the SB shove, calling is chip EV+ but not $ EV+.

But that's not an issue of variance. It's isn't an issue of being able to withstand the ups and downs of the variance train. It's an EV calculation pure and simple.

That's what ICM -the Independent Chip Model- is all about. It's pretty complicated and it's probably impossible to know at each spot the difference between chip EV and $EV, but it's foolish not to take it into account at all.

In Kill em all they use the "bubble factor" which is a ratio of prize money won : prize money lost for a given spot in the tourney. Bubble factor is then applied to the hand to calculate an adjusted EV.

There's a good concise post with the math here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...25&postcount=4
cAmmAndo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:49 PM   #16462
zoltan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
zoltan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Off my lawn you little punk!
Posts: 21,444
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragequit99 View Post
GG - thanks, good points on hobby front. A few of my friends have recently taken up cycling and I guarantee they're spending more on that each year than I could possibly lose at poker in two years.
Riding makes you live longer and look better tho.
zoltan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 01:52 PM   #16463
zoltan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
zoltan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Off my lawn you little punk!
Posts: 21,444
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Regarding WR and SD helping out predicting what type of downswing we could possibly go on...

... isn't this making a major assumption that the game conditions we've collected all of our data in up to this point remain the same?

And since we know that game conditions *probably* won't remain the same, aren't these stats *almost* rendered kinda useless with regards to predicting the future?

GknowsexactlywhatI'vedonetothispoint;haszeroconfid encetheymeanmuchofanythingmovingforwardG
Bip needs to provide this thread with the appropriate detrending algorithm.
zoltan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 03:20 PM   #16464
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 gobbledygeek View Post
Regarding WR and SD helping out predicting what type of downswing we could possibly go on...

... isn't this making a major assumption that the game conditions we've collected all of our data in up to this point remain the same?

And since we know that game conditions *probably* won't remain the same, aren't these stats *almost* rendered kinda useless with regards to predicting the future?

GknowsexactlywhatI'vedonetothispoint;haszeroconfid encetheymeanmuchofanythingmovingforwardG
Assuming that game conditions will remain approximately the same, and/or that your skill will improve enough to maintain the same edge (or close to it) is pretty reasonable IMO. It makes a lot more sense to make an adjustment or two and make the calculations (like take 80% of your winrate if you think the games will get tougher, or you ran good, etc) than to just say, "Well, this is all useless anyway."

Like anything in poker, honest introspection and reasonable predictions will help in this area - but obviously not everyone is capable of those things. Just one more skill to have in managing one's poker bankroll/career/hobby/whatever.
cuserounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 04:41 PM   #16465
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoltan View Post
Riding makes you live longer and look better tho.
You want to live for ever?

Thought not.

Looking better has merit though, I'll bear it in mind
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 05:22 PM   #16466
bip!
Slow Pony
 
bip!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: not on urban dictionary...
Posts: 13,667
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoltan View Post
Bip needs to provide this thread with the appropriate detrending algorithm.


This foe is beyond me
bip! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 05:39 PM   #16467
DeathCabForTootie
Pooh-Bah
 
DeathCabForTootie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: SHR Tunaments
Posts: 5,722
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
Yea, it's interesting to see players that "play $2/5" and refuse to sit at a $1/2 table, or do but ***** and then leave as soon as a $/25 seat opens, even if the $1/2 game is *significantly* better. A smart player would be stake agnostic and just pick the juiciest table with the biggest whale.
I used to be agnostic, esp if a whale is sitting $1/2 or if stacks are super deep. However the rake in my room is the same for $1/2 and $2/5. So it generally will take a unicorn event to get me to stay at a $1/2 game. The rake and stack depth will have a much greater impact on whether or not a table is profitable or not.

Not to mention sitting at most $1/2 tables everyone is miserable and not social, which negatively affect profitability. You'll of course encounter this at $2/5 but my experience is generally $2/5 games are more social, with $5 blind PLO being most social.
DeathCabForTootie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 07:55 PM   #16468
scrybe
adept
 
scrybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: github repos
Posts: 956
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragequit99 View Post
You really like that whole "force variance on them to force a fold thing".

What are your thoughts on this...

I let people in my game know I'm on a short roll and that I want to avoid going broke.

Then I merrily call the aggro players down till they twig that I'm not actually weak/tight.
One does not have to take -EV lines to give someone the opportunity to fold +EV spots.
scrybe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 08:19 PM   #16469
Maskk
veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DC Area
Posts: 2,083
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.


True in finance, too.

It takes a lot of humility in poker to say; "I've been on a sun run"

Going up 1G per night 2 weekends in a row at 1 3 has some luck in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maskk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 08:27 PM   #16470
Maskk
veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DC Area
Posts: 2,083
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
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.


Monte Carlos aren't that complicated to model using normal curves (a bit harder if you have a fat tail observation like finance). If it's impossibly complicated, it's probably broken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maskk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 08:29 PM   #16471
Maskk
veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DC Area
Posts: 2,083
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianNit View Post
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.


I think a realistic hourly SDev for poker is going to be a min of 100bb, prob more for those w higher W/Rates (as it's unlikely a low Vol style is as profitable in the current environments of midsttakes)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maskk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 08:37 PM   #16472
Maskk
veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DC Area
Posts: 2,083
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicname View Post
Agreed, and this doesn't take into account a common leak among "good" players at low stakes. Too many player overestimate their own skill level while underestimating their opponents.

It would be great if we were all super-studs who could be reliably confident in our assessment of super thin EV plays. The reality is that often players will be making the wrong decision in these situations.

It's doesn't have to be that a player it taking these spots, it's that he/she believes they are making the correct play when in fact they are not. It's easier to be right when the margin of error is greater.


I really hate thin EV spots for this reason. You really don't know if his range is what you think it is, etc.


I like far better EV of river value bets where were pretty damn positive we are murdering their final holdings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maskk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 08:42 PM   #16473
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskk View Post
I think a realistic hourly SDev for poker is going to be a min of 100bb, prob more for those w higher W/Rates (as it's unlikely a low Vol style is as profitable in the current environments of midsttakes)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone had to know I would pop in right about now, right?

My win rate after 1100 hours of 2/5 is 8.3 BBs/hr
My StdDev is 50.5 BB/hr (calculations verified by Bip!)

I find it hilarious that people tell me over and over that my lines arent good and at the same time people tell me low variance style poker isn't very profitable.

Low volatility style can be pretty profitable if you know what you're doing and are good at it. Lets not forget everyone who says you have to buy in full or you lose lots of EV. Another untruth.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 09:21 PM   #16474
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,514
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
My win rate after 1100 hours of 2/5 is 8.3 BBs/hr
My StdDev is 50.5 BB/hr (calculations verified by Bip!)

I find it hilarious that people tell me over and over that my lines arent good and at the same time people tell me low variance style poker isn't very profitable.
From what I found out by googling, a standard range for poker deviation is between 80-100bb per 100 hands. Yours are 50bb per hour and you re playing about a third of that. To put a further wrinkle to that, the relationship isn't linear AFAIK so you can't just say I am playing 33 hands per hour, so my standard deviation is 150bb per 100. So yeah, your standard deviation should be in the range of a 100bb per 100.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 09:29 PM   #16475
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
From what I found out by googling, a standard range for poker deviation is between 80-100bb per 100 hands. Yours are 50bb per hour and you re playing about a third of that. To put a further wrinkle to that, the relationship isn't linear AFAIK so you can't just say I am playing 33 hands per hour, so my standard deviation is 150bb per 100. So yeah, your standard deviation should be in the range of a 100bb per 100.
Who said anything about BB/100 hands. StnDev is normally quoted as BB/hr and that's what I was responding to when Maskk said "hourly SDev for poker is going to be a min of 100BB"

That's just flat out not true.
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 10:38 AM.


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