Imagine 6 people sitting at a table, each flipping a fair coin ten times.

One player flips heads seven times

One player flips heads six times

Two players flip heads five times

One player flips heads three times

One player flips heads one time

Discuss....

I have found I bust at about two hours, and the tournaments are every second week. The math gives me good reason to see where I stand in a couple of years, if l manage to up my skill a few knots. Will fight for it!

Luck is huge, the way I see it you need to survive long enough in order to be able to exploit your run good when it happens.

Plenty of well known MTT players just had stretches of run like god in shots way above their ABI.

Imagine being an online $100 MTT reg and waking up at a live 10k HR where GTO donks are 4betting you and barreling off with A5os.

Variance calculators are pretty scary tbh

Still beatable game. Just need either insane volume or a very nice winrate. It's when one of those lacks that you run into issues.

Is Matt really the #1 player in America? Never thought about that before.

SeaLLama is from Florida I heard?

Key to winning at poker is running good when you shot take. If you're a break even player but run good when you play high stakes and run bad when you play low stakes you'll be a huge winner. It's that easy.

I'm kind of joking but also not, there's massive survivorship bias in poker, where the high stakes crushers were lucky to have variance on their side when they took their shots. Probably plenty of would be crushers who simply ran bad when they had their shot and are nobodies now.

bot5 would assume he’s crushing these other fishbots after 500k hands

There used to be a chicken in Chinatown tht played tic tac toe.

There was a chimpanzee at the WSOP one year that played holdem live heads-sup.

In a chicken v chmp match up, who does NVG think would prevail ?

100 hours of live play is nothing.

100 hours of live play x 35 hands/hour (generous, assumes fast game) equals 3500 hands.

Let's again be generous and say you're a fairly loose/aggressive player who plays 25% of hands.

That means you're playing less than 900 hands total.

Out of those most will be small pots where you're gaining or losing a small number of BB.

Maybe 10% of those > 900 hands will be large all-in type pots that will have the greatest effect on your winrate.

So we're talking less than 100 large all-in type pots.

I don't know how you define "highly probable," but over such a small sample your results will be all over the place. Many of those hands will likely be "coolers," hands that basically play themselves: AA vs. KK with the money going in preflop, set over set, etc.

If you're really good MAYBE you can average 60% equity in your all-in pots, but the short-term variance will still be the largest factor determining how you do.

Like most players with no online experience, Mason has an amateurish/delusional understanding of the game. That post I had to read a few times to tell if he was joking or not. It doesn't really matter because all you need to sell books is to pretend to know what you're talking about.

In all honesty, Mason said it's "highly probable" to have a clue after 100 hours. The graph tells you are in the green 70% of the time with 10bb/hr. Being a break even player it would be 50%.

Guess you need some optimism.

Edit: 10bb/100, maybe 3bb/hour, of course.

Game selection (aka bum hunting) has always been the true essence of cash game poker, fleece your opponent as fast as possible and move on to the next, it’s not a sport, it’s a hustle. I know lots of people donÂ’t agree with that and in most cases you have to play good players to improve, but really if you want to win any money in this game you have to play people worse/much worse than you - otherwise you are essentially gambling. If you battle good players youÂ’ll become much better technically but you wonÂ’t win more money. You can also run insane bad for long periods of time vs imbeciles too. Getting into good games, playing idiots and maximizing any edge is the old school way and it still applies today.

I won’t even comment on mtts and the variance as it’s just so ******ed. But over the very long term of course the cream rises to the top, if they go on a heater - unfortunately you can run incredibly bad for tens of thousands of mtts and never know if you’ll ever ‘win’.

your life is determined by luck

Where does skill or edge factor in to this? Table selection? Wow 6 bots playing GTO poker against each other are breakeven how cool. What are we supposed to take from this?

Make a simulation of 6 bots that play at different skill levels and I would be more interested in that.

The point is that this is common knowledge for anyone with a basic understanding of variance. A coach worth anything should see that twitter post and shrug their shoulders thinking "meh, nothing new here".

Luck does not exist. It's only a concept created by the human mind.

Nah seallama top. Matt’s been around a while and has a public profile and obviously is really strong so he gets referred to as #1 even though seallama exist. Andrew graham (ohheycindy on stars) would be in this convo as well

not Ike Haxton?

The guys that reached high stakes also got kicked in the teeth along the way. It typically takes several shot takes at a level to stick and there’s many anecdotes about this from top players.

..no? Idk what Ike is up to (triton I guess) or if he even plays online. I’m talking best player on a skill basis, not who’s making the most money. Seallama plays Linus and Roberto Perez 3handed 20knl on ACR regularly. And won ~1mil last year.

Let's say you're playing in a game where your standard deviation is $X per hour. After four hours your standard deviation is $X/2 per hour. (This is on your win rate, not your total expectation.) After 100 hours your standard deviation is now $X/10. That makes it a lot more likely you'll be ahead after 100 hours than 4 hours. However, if your win rate is small compared to the standard deviation, there will still be a good chance you're losing for that time period. If your win rate is large, your chance of being behind will be much less. See my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics - Expanded Edition for more discussion.

Mason

It's extremely likely that the experiment is flawed. Variance calculators have existed for 10+ years and show that these results are incredibly unlikely.

You need to take your insults some place else. When writing about the relationship between EV and variance / standard deviation, statistical theory has nothing to do with whether you're playing online or live, (or even poker).

Only someone with little understanding of this stuff would post what you just did.

Mason