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 04-16-2019, 11:41 AM   #23601
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyThePinhead View Post
Lifetime tracked is 7.86 bb/hr over 3,977 hours across all games and stakes.
Congrats, especially on the impressive weekend warrior volume!

GcluelessvolumenoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 12:55 PM   #23602
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
And Ill say what has been said here many times, when you play super tight and/or short stacked, more of your hands are all ins. You rely more on showdown winnings so you are at the mercy of the poker gods and will have a higher variation in win rates over certain time frames.

People who play more LAG and are good at it, meaning they have a higher win rate and more money is won without showdown, will have win rates that are more consistent over 1000 hour periods. 1000 hours is NOT lol sample size for everyone.
And I've said here many times that this isn't true. Since we just had this argument I'm not going to get into it again right now, but I still feel obligated to point out incorrect information when I see it.

All of this short-stack vs. full-stack and Lag vs. Tag nonsense doesn't really matter. We can argue forever about who generally experiences greater variance, but what really matters is your win-rate and standard deviation. A Tag can have a higher standard deviation than a Lag, and vice versa. IIRC both your and gg's standard deviations are very low, so you both can have relatively high confidence in your win-rates over the period of time you measured. You are incorrect that gg is experiencing this variance due to his play style. I would agree that it may be due to changing game conditions, although it really could be simple variance. Variance can be quite severe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
Online and live games don't compare at all. Live players are much worse making win rates much higher. The higher the win rate, the shorter time frame needed to hit your true win rate...or be close to it more consistently.
Confidence in our win-rate in absolute measures doesn't have anything to do with the magnitude of our win-rate. It depends on our standard deviation. However a 2BB/h confidence interval is relatively much smaller to a high 10BB/h player than to a 2BB/h player.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 08:05 PM   #23603
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Browni, We are going to have to agree to disagree. No need to rehash the whole discussion again.

As far variance in general, especially over something like 1000 hours, Id say its greatly exaggerated by bad players and players who play a super aggro style that is totally unnecessary to win at a high rate.

As far as GGs variance, I say what variance?
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 09:31 PM   #23604
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Actually, browni made a different point than the one you disagreed on before, which is about objective SDevs. You can agree to disagree about what style is more likely to produce what kind of SDev, but the SDev's of individuals' recorded results is what it is.

And yes SDev and hours are the inputs to get confidence interval, which does not need or include the observed winrate. I can tell you with 95% confidence that my "natural winrate" is within 4BBs/hr of my observed winrate, and that is true no matter what my observed winrate is.

Higher winrates reduce risk of ruin, or even major downswings, considerably. They do not reduce overall variance, though. They just make variance easier to handle.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 10:39 PM   #23605
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
Actually, browni made a different point than the one you disagreed on before, which is about objective SDevs. You can agree to disagree about what style is more likely to produce what kind of SDev, but the SDev's of individuals' recorded results is what it is.

And yes SDev and hours are the inputs to get confidence interval, which does not need or include the observed winrate. I can tell you with 95% confidence that my "natural winrate" is within 4BBs/hr of my observed winrate, and that is true no matter what my observed winrate is.

Higher winrates reduce risk of ruin, or even major downswings, considerably. They do not reduce overall variance, though. They just make variance easier to handle.
Well, we are right back to where we were before which is different people meaning different things when they talk about "variance".

If Player A has a high win rate and his downswings are almost always relatively small and he tends to win somewhat close to the same amounts each time over, lets say each 250 hour block of time....that to me is low variance. Their win rate doesn't "vary" that much and their "long term" is much shorter than most people. They may rarely win more than 2 buy ins in any session but they win a high percentage of their sessions.

That's what I mean by "variance" as it relates to poker.

Then there are guys who win or lose 3-5 buy ins every time they sit down. They routinely go on 10 buy in downswings but when they get hot, they log huge winning sessions. To me that's high variance.

I dont care what the technical definition of "variance" is.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 11:33 PM   #23606
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

That's because the guy who wins or loses 3-5 buy ins has a huge standard deviation. It has nothing to do with their winrate.

Please look up what standard deviation means before arguing about this anymore.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 07:13 AM   #23607
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Im going to make this point and then shut up. Your playing style has everything to do with StnDev and variance. A good LAG will have a lower StnDev and thus lower variance (more consistent results). A good LAG (high win rate) is in more pots so he has more opportunity to use his skill advantage and wins more pots without showdown. A bad LAG (low win rate) spews and clicks buttons. His results are all over the place. He will have a massive StnDev so Yes win rate does play a part.

A TAG is in less pots and is more at the mercy of the cards. It takes him longer to get to the "long term". He will experience more short term variance due to being in less +EV spots. If the TAG plays one hand in every 5 hour session, hes going to do very well or very badly that day. His results will vary greatly day to day.

The long term isnt measured in hours played. Its measured in number of hands played in a +EV manner.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 07:53 AM   #23608
BlindingLaser
adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NJ/MA
Posts: 732
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Think of a bell curve. The thing winrate determines is where the center of the bell curve is; standard deviation determines how "flat" or "tall" the bell curve is. Variance is just stddev^2.

Yes, the thing you're describing "feels" right because what's happening to the good LAG is that their bell curve is shifted far enough to the positive that downswongs don't hurt as much (in fact if they're a true crusher, the downswong might look more like winnings a little bit instead of winning a lot).

Stddev and variance is gigantic -- the long run is very long, and the long run is just a measure of what your true winrate is -- but that winrate is nebulous because it packs your A/B/C/D game all rolled up into one.
BlindingLaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 07:55 AM   #23609
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Im going to make this point and then shut up. Your playing style has everything to do with StnDev and variance.
Of course there is some level of correlation, but correlation is not causation, and whether TAG or LAG has more variance was not even remotely the point of browni's post.

He was speaking of GG's observed SDev, and it is very low. That is not because he is a nit, though it may be because he avoids high variance spots post-flop often.

Generally speaking, I agree that LAG tends to be lower variance, but in GG's specific example, the math shows that his observed difference in winrates in 1000 hour sample sizes is not just due to variance. As browni correctly observed:

Quote:
Confidence in our win-rate in absolute measures doesn't have anything to do with the magnitude of our win-rate. It depends on our standard deviation.
and
Quote:
both your and gg's standard deviations are very low, so you both can have relatively high confidence in your win-rates over the period of time you measured.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:11 AM   #23610
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
Of course there is some level of correlation, but correlation is not causation, and whether TAG or LAG has more variance was not even remotely the point of browni's post.

He was speaking of GG's observed SDev, and it is very low. That is not because he is a nit, though it may be because he avoids high variance spots post-flop often.

Generally speaking, I agree that LAG tends to be lower variance, but in GG's specific example, the math shows that his observed difference in winrates in 1000 hour sample sizes is not just due to variance. As browni correctly observed:



and
That's my point. If his 1000 blocks show win rates of something like 8.4BBs, 3.4BBs, 10.6BBs, 4.5BBs.....and he felt like he was playing the same way then THAT would be variance and would help show that 1000 hours means nothing. But thats not the case at all. Not even remotely. I stand by my point that 1000 hours of live poker is plenty big enough sample size.

You could (should) easily be having increasing win rates over each 1000 block as you get better, up to a point....but you should not be seeing crazy up and down variations in win rates over 1000 blocks.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:21 AM   #23611
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Would you say there is any merit to this stat?

StnDev/win rate

Mine is 4.95
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:25 AM   #23612
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

What do you mean by "merit?"

If you add BR to it, it could help you figure RoR.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:34 AM   #23613
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

This stat would be "lower is better"

A really good but wild 2/5 player may have a StnDev of $600/hr and win rate of $60/hr. He has a 10.

Dont you think he would his overall poker life / stress level would be better if he had a StnDev of $400/hr and win rate of $60/hr giving him a 6.66?

Wouldn't you rather have a lower StnDev if you could do it without sacrificing much, if anything, in terms of win rate? The lower this stat is the easier your poker life is. The less stress you have. The less amount of times you leave the poker room pissed off and feeling frustrated the rest of the day. The less often you feel like poker sucks and sucks the life out of you.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:48 AM   #23614
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, lower SDev is not "better." It just is. Sure, it makes life less stressful, but this game is about winning the most money, not the most pots, or having the smoothest lines.

If given a choice between A and B, of course I'd rather have B, but realistically if we are tweaking our style to avoid variance, we are probably not maximizing EV, so the choice is more like $600/hr Sdev with a WR of $60/hr or $400 SDev with a WR of $55/hr. In that case, the first is clearly better.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 08:55 AM   #23615
XtraScratch8
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,921
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Without knowing my StdDev stat, I would assume that I’m the second of the two players you two are talking about. The one who sacrifices a bit of WR in order to reduce stress and keep a more steady, reliable source of part-time income flowing. For me, I don’t mind this trade off, but I’ll probably lean toward more aggro/higher variance/slightly higher WR in a year or two.
XtraScratch8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 11:26 AM   #23616
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I don't understand the variance / standard deviation / math / etc. *at all* so I won't get involved on that end.

All's I know is that I've produced ~12 bb/hr and ~4 bb/hr and everything in-between over different 1000+ hour samples, and with is what I believe are considered low SDs. And that I have *zero* confidence whatsoever in my overall ~7 bb/hr winrate. Coming into last year, if you hadda offered me a 2018 at 7 bb/hr, I would have *snap* accepted (as it turns out, that's what I ended up doing, which honestly took me by surprise as I was expecting much less). If you hadda offered me 7 bb/hr for 2019, I still would have snap accepted (and at this point, I wish someone would have offered me that, lol).

GI'mgladthemathisalotmoreconfidendinmyresultsthanI amG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:02 PM   #23617
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

That takes my full circle and right back to the fact that people playing super tight and/or short stacked are more at the mercy of the luck of the cards and needing to have winners at showdown constantly and they will experience much less consistent results.

Consistent results is what poker players mean when they say “variance” no matter the actual mathematical definition is
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:22 PM   #23618
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I won't reply to the prior posts because Garick represented my points perfectly well, and I have nothing to add.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
Would you say there is any merit to this stat?

StnDev/win rate

Mine is 4.95
It's an important stat which I frequently use to compare different types of games. It's the stat that made me decide not to count cards anymore because poker is significantly better. It works very well for comparing games with scalable bet sizing.

BTW, the square of that stat is the expected length of your breakeven stretches running at -1 standard deviations. Not sure I worded that correctly, but it means you are approximately 15% likely to lose over your next 25 hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
That takes my full circle and right back to the fact that people playing super tight and/or short stacked are more at the mercy of the luck of the cards and needing to have winners at showdown constantly and they will experience much less consistent results.

Consistent results is what poker players mean when they say “variance” no matter the actual mathematical definition is
I don't know what consistent results means to you, which is the problem with using an imprecise definition. The mathematical definition means something very specific and there is no confusion or miscommunication due to using it.

It's fine to use in conversation, but if you are trying to make an argument you really shouldn't be using such a vague definition. You're trying to build a house with a weak foundation.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:27 PM   #23619
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, Im making a poker players argument and being very clear about what i mean. You are making a mathematicians argument.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:38 PM   #23620
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, you are making a Mike argument, and you are responding to things browni didn't say in order to take the opportunity to do so.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 01:06 PM   #23621
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post



I don't know what consistent results means to you, which is the problem with using an imprecise definition. The mathematical definition means something very specific and there is no confusion or miscommunication due to using it.

.
I replied to this
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 01:16 PM   #23622
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
No, Im making a poker players argument and being very clear about what i mean. You are making a mathematicians argument.
I'm a poker player, too, not a mathematician. This is entry level statistics (I know because I had to do this stuff helping my wife with her homework, although I never took a course myself) that every poker player should study, and it's very accessible if you got through high school math.

"Consistent results" doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me, and it doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to Bob, or Mellissa, or Omar.

But like I said before I'm not getting into the Tag/Lag nonsense again. What matters is standard deviation and win-rate. I'm not arguing which player type generally has higher/lower stats. My point is only that GG is not more at the mercy of luck than you. His luck factor is about the same as yours despite your drastically different styles.

I agree that it's very likely GG's fluctuation in win-rate is more likely due to changing game conditions than simple variance.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 04:54 PM   #23623
typesick
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 115
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Alright. Just hit the 500 hour mark for tracking and all action was at 2/5. Started tracking on 12/14 in large part because of this thread and here are the results:

http://imgur.com/a/ySQdu8D

Edit-having difficulty getting the image to post. Anyone know the issue?

Last edited by Garick; 04-28-2019 at 06:01 PM. Reason: I think we can't embed imgur anymore. I use tinypic.com these days
typesick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 05:09 PM   #23624
iraisetoomuch
banned
 
iraisetoomuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 34,453
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by typesick View Post
Alright. Just hit the 500 hour mark for tracking and all action was at 2/5. Started tracking on 12/14 in large part because of this thread and here are the results:

[IMG][Imgur](http://imgur.com/a/ySQdu8D)[/IMG]

Edit-having difficulty getting the image to post. Anyone know the issue?
No clue. But just upload it to imgur.
iraisetoomuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 06:02 PM   #23625
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Holy ****! Nice results, typesick.
Garick 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 10:36 AM.


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