Stefan isn't a crusher.

He is the best player in the world.

Someone who beats HSNL for 3bb/100 is a really good poker player. It was in response to someone who called 1bb/100 crushing...I'm sure that's someone who was talking about nl100 or 200. I've read here that nl50z on ACR or Stars is full unbeatable regs too.

But there are people who win at very high rates 3 handed or all in reg lineups. Ospiel is another example. This stuff is tracked. Stefan won 500k from limitless. Limitless is not a whale.

I probably have a lower opinion of the poker ability of HS regs than most.

No doubt that many a poker player has used it, but this quote comes from a baseball player: Lefty Gomez, member of the Yankees in the 1930s.

If there is no way to tell if you're a winning poker player, then how can you possibly separate the wheat from the chaff? Or find that poker diamond in the ruff?

Lol

What folks like you don’t seem to understand when making these eyebrow-raising claims about sustainable winrates is that this money actually has to come from somewhere. Can you honestly say with a straight face that there are guys able to sustain that and there are regs who are playing hundreds of thousands of hands losing to these guys and not knowing they’re a dog, in 2021. Lol.

yea but he doesn't beat the games he plays in by at least 10BB per a hundred so obvious donkey

The very best players in the world are so good that when they play each other no one is crushing. No idea why people in this forum have a hard time wrapping their heads around that fact.

Bac in the day, Nanonoko played so many hands his graph is almost a straight line. It's hard to argue that all the gains is just run good.

Low rake. He tried some challenge at lower limits and I think he didn't beat them.

no one said he did

Hi,

Is there a way to calculate variance for shorter stack buyins? Like for pokerstars 20bb cap games, or even something like the 5bb push/fold games on 888? I'm assuming there would be a ton of more variance in those games but I'm not sure if there is a way to quantify it in the same manner this variance calculator does? Or does it even matter if the winrates are the same?

There are people who win for 8bb+ at nl1k if they sit with a recreational plus 4 regs. I've seen the graphs.

The best players at NL500z also have at least 4-5bb winrate when quite a few hands are against other 5 regs. Several people that start coaching also show their graphs. Look at jayser and ja.sam.gale threads. Mynameiskarl when he started coaching for upswing also showed longterm graphs.

Also innerpsy had millions of hands with a small winrate ~2bb from what I recall streaming on twitch playing 500zoom while also playing tournaments at the same time. Granted he probably also received money from stars to stream, but the point remains he was a winner for at least a few years straight.

nanonoko was an inspiration to midstakes grinders across the globe

#respect

I'm pretty sure that the bb/100 variance will be much lower in those games than in equal blind games but with full stacks. Playing 2/5 with 20bb ($100) will ofc have higher variance than playing 0.50/1 with 100bb ($100) though.

If the games you play can be imported to a tracker then you can just play a bunch and then look up your own std deviation. For 20bb cap games I guess you can search up someone else having posted it somewhere? Or contact someone you may know/find who has played a ton of it with a HUD, they'll have that stat in their tracker

I dont really know the math involved in this type of simulation, but i've always had some qualms about the result.

A lot of time in cash games you are exploiting someone who ends up in 100% polarized spots, essentially playing his cards face up, and you have information on how he reacts to different things. Extracting money in these spots from this type of player is essentially variance free.

There's a lot of things in poker where variance crushes, but a good winning player playing the right games has enough spots where he's printing variance free money that the bottom part of those probability runs just don't exist.

Or at least that's my theory.

Standard deviation would (probably) be higher here.

If 50 people draw different length straws, someone will get the shortest straw. You can't say "no one will get the shortest straw".

Well, you can, but you're being literally absurd and a crazy person.

cykablyat I'll show you an example actually. The first picture here is a 20bb winner with 100 std deviation over 100k hands.

Now, if we instead imagine a 20bb winner with 50 std deviation (muchhh lower variance playstyle because he can, as you say, print variance free a lot), then what was a bottom run in the first pic (with 100 std dev) goes away, yes! Stops existing! BUT, that's under the NEW assumptions and THOSE assumtions still produce bottom runs of its own!

So if what you're trying to communicate is that a lower variance play-style with same winrate doesnt' have the same bottom runs that a higher variance play-style does, you are right. Of course. But it still has its own bottom runs - it's anther player and another set of calculations with its own buttom runs.

good news for all the 20bb winners

I was trying to conjure up this magical crusher who apparently owns people variance free enough to dodge mathematical realities of someone having to pick the shortest straw

I am not math/science illiterate and i understand that this graph spits out the "truth".

What im essentially disputing with my "gut feeling" is that the std deviation number for games is wrong.

Lets take a practical example. Im playing 2/4 plo 6max 100k hands. 4 players are regs i beat at 3BB/100 and the last player is someone colluding with me and chipdumping me at 15BB/100. EV winrate ends up being 5.4BB/100 in total. I believe std deviation for this sample size will be wrong and the bottom part of the probability runs are "impossible".

Do you still disagree with this statement?

bump

The small edges and it is all luck if it is 2bb up or down. If you have a 2bb/100 winrate, it is just what reads there; it is not your true winrate. This year it could be up, the next year down. And overall it could still show 2bb/100 in the long run, but the real result stays unsure. With the bigger edges, it is just a case if one wins and how much; the losing practically being outside the picture.

Why? If you understood the graph's you posted in the OP, the answer's obvious: if you a huge winrate you will "know" and if you have a small/mid wr, you won't "know".

You know what makes me think I'm good enough for 1-2/2-4? When I play PLO, I get these .50/1.00 and under 6 max guys going like puppets. I take beats when it matters on GG and party, like, "What the **** is going on?" Every time I lose in PLO, it's mid set vs. top, or some situation where i either gave no value and their outs were limited or runner runner or 2 outter. It's getting sickening. I'm not making this up either. Go to -ev canuck on GG. I got to two final tables on party and won both in one night last week. I'm heavy t/balooga_ on party. I run like ****ing death.. and it's not stopping. Even bad players get on good runs once in a while. I guess i'm up 1k on GG in tournies. LMAO. And 1/2 2/4 play online is like 5/10 10/20 live.