Look up the term "declining marginal utility."

Let's be real with everyone Mike. You went on a downswing at 2/5 so you took this bet because you got a bit sheepish at 2/5, wanted to put hours in while going down in stakes and took this as some encouragement to work on your game and get volume.

The subject of how beatable 1/2 was came up over and over again. I basically laughed at the guys saying it was so tough to beat for any reasonable number due to rake being the same as 2/5 and tips being a higher percentage of total profit. My position was that the players are so much worse that none of that matters. Several times I said "one of these days Im gonna grind 1/2 just to see what happens". I played some 1/2 with a friend several months ago in my normal room and was shocked at how bad a lot of the players were so I was pretty confidant that I would crush it.

Then, I happened to hit a big downswing at 2/5 (big for me...8 buy ins). So, I decided that this was the perfect time to test my theory about 1/2.

So the answer is that youre right. I did this prop bet at this particular time because of my downswing, but I was going to do it sooner or later anyway. The timing was just perfect right now.

Then I would've been disappointed but still made $2360. Not exactly the end of the world.

Never said that it was, and also not hating at all. Only offered my opinion that it was a bad bet for you if all things assumed were true, and that going by results instead of expectation is a bit silly

Just based on math... lets assume our winrate at 1/2 is 30/hr overall and at 2/5 its 45/hr as you said.

We take the same bet for 2 months and play 160 hours each.

First month we win at 35/hr for a total net of 7100 (5600+1500). Second month we win at 25/hr for a total net of 3500 (4000-500). thats 10600 expected

Now take 320 hours at 45/hr at 2/5 and thats 14,400 expected

Something around 8:1 would have been the odds to make it worth it imo

OK, that math makes sense if I was comparing the two options long term but I wasnt. I also wasnt doing this solely for the money. I was doing it to prove a point and because like I said in my last post, I was on a down swing and the timing was perfect.

Im confidant that my long term win rate at 1/2 would be in the neighborhood of $30/hr. Possibly a bit more so I was confidant that I would win the bet if I ran average which would put me close to my 2/5 win rate so I didnt feel like I was giving up any potential profit from playing lower.

As far as the bet goes, my plan was to grind a ton of hours at the beginning and see where I was which gave me a big advantage. I could adjust from there as far as volume. A normal month for me is about 125 hours. If after a while if it was obvious I wasn't going to break $30/hr I could forfeit the bet and go back and play 2/5 (if I was playing well and couldn't hit $30/hr because I overestimated what is possible).

What happened was I was crushing and I knew I would win the bet. I couldve quit at my normal 125 hours or so and ended up with a really good month that would've been somewhere above an average 2/5 month for me profit wise including the $1500 from the bet. However, I just kept playing 1/2 for a couple reasons. The max buy in is $300 (150BBs) and I wanted to practice playing deep stacked, I was LAGging it up and having fun and I had a renewed focus since I had no reads on anyone.

Hopefully, the experience has improved my 2/5 game and if so the bet was all that more beneficial.

I think there's a ton of faulty thinking here.

I have 300 hr samples in 2/5 where I am winning at 19bb/hr and 500 hr samples where I am winning at 16bb/hr. Does this prove I can beat the game for 16bb? No, it doesn't. It's just variance running wild in a small sample size.

In this forum we are talking about how much 500 hours is too small of a sample size to determine true winrate, but apparently those who placed the bet were comfortable with a 100 hour sample size. In reality they were betting that statistical noise would favor them.

I am pretty sure a more statistically minded poster could plug in a hypothetical win rates from 10bb/hr to 15bb/hr combined with your observed standard deviation in order to calculate the percentage of time you do in fact win more than 15bb/hr in a 100 hour sample.

The funniest part is that if you are a winner and you experience a downswing, regression to the mean is bound to give you countervailing run good, so in all likelihood you wasted your run good at a lower game.

Ive played more than enough to know the difference between run good / run bad / massive edge / getting outplayed. Based on my experience, I believe my long term win rate at 1/2 would be about $30/hr even though I hit $45/hr during this 170 hr sample.

I was surely due to run better after the 2/5 downswing, but I believe I ran about avg at 1/2. I just happened to get paid off big on a few hands that juiced my win rate. If you want to call that running good, then fine. I think of it as playing well against donks.

Not sure if serious, but regression to the man just means that the next sample is more likely to be close to average if the last one was extreme, not that there will be a countervailing extreme to bring the full sample towards expected results.

What you are describing is not regression to the mean, but rather the Gambler's Fallacy.

Can we have a Mike Starr containment thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for this, that distinction always threw me off and as a matter of fact, I wanted to start a thread on the probability forum so as to get an answer.

I am sure you are a winning player at 1/2. You might be even a 15bb/hr winner at it. 100 or 150 hours doesn't prove it however. It's silly to pretend it does.

And while all of us have an idea of where we stand, I don't think that anyone can pinpoint their expected winrate with such accuracy.

Last, but not least, as has been pointed out in these forums, performance in all in situations is one component of run good. Flopping good hands is another. Flopping good hands when your opponent has the second or third best hand is another. And so on and so on.

+1

it was a prop bet, why are we going into this so much? people make all kinds of stupid prop bets that are way more -EV than this and no one cares.

congrats on the win Mike, nice results. can we move on?

Wasn't this thread just permanently locked because of this **** going on in the last page? And the common denominator was ... Mike

All I did was post info on a prop bet. Someone else posted about a prop bet over total volume and nobody picked it apart with a fine tooth comb. Besides, nowhere has anyone called anyone names, or said anything over the top. A few people said good job. A few people said it was a dumb bet and there was a discussion. I thought thats what this forum was for. To discuss poker related stuff. As long as its done respectfully, whats the problem?

I agree thus my proposal of a containment thread for him. I'm not ****ting on him but he clearly creates a lot of content that is mildly off topic. Seems inane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is that this thread inevitably devolves into your personal journal. Set up a pgc to discuss your prop bets, your hands, runbad, etc. You feel the need to respond to every mildly critical post directed to you.

I don't think it's entirely on you but that is the reality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QFT. Let's keep it true. No need to seek drama.

Sick results way to give some real world data to the winrates and bankroll thread

IMO, main reason why he's tilting a lot of people is because his WR claims cannot be substantiated, and his strategy posts are highly suspect.

So when you keep reading these "successful" stories and brags from Mike, it induces people to challenge him, and that kind of challenges often lead to personal attacks, because Mike had a history of taking them personal.

FWIW, every time I read one of Mike's brags, I feel like poking holes into his claim as well...

I'm guessing you are Playing an TAG style?

It's funny, my WR in bb/hr went up as my stakes moved from lowest to second lowest in a room (from 1/3 to 2/5). Probably due to my ability to both play deeper and villains increased bluffability at higher stakes...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Orrrrrr because you moved up?

Posted that wrong. Should be WR in bb/hr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooh, likely sample size issue. But tbh 1/3 and 2/5, from my experience anyway, play pretty similar.

I generally think the reason people who have higher wr at 2/5 vs 1/2 or 1/3 is the games are deeper. A bad 1/2 or 1/3 game is often bad because the other 8 players have a total of $1k between them. This rarely happens at 2/5.

Conversely, shorter stacks generally play far worse than players with 100+bb stacks. IMO they're where the money is made.

If you actually believe this is true im sure watching you table select would be quite hilarious

*tips floor guy $5*
"Let me know when a game opens up where the biggest stack is 80bb, thanks"