Can someone show me a graph of a person running above eV for 150k+ hands? Honestly don't think I've ever seen one

on what site are you playing on?

nvm..

I thought I was the only one, I've played with you some Big not too much lately though.

I'm about -120 BI under EV this year on WPN

I'm 200ish BI below EV over a few million hands playing NLHE. You're playing PLO so it can for sure get a lot worse. Some sites do not work right with HEM/PT and you will have an AI EV line of about 75% of your won money line, make sure you're not playing on one of them.

personally, i find the more I bitch in chat the better I run soon after. I'm pretty sure admins can hear you and give you some good cards

All this is true, But like you said that other stuff evens out... Obviously ALL in EV is not a true indication of how you run but it's pretty close after 100,000's of hands. Constantly losing stacks when getting it in is way more tougher then getting a standard AA vs KK cooler.

Just my 2 cents

Iirc someone smart and knowledgable once stated a number for how much of variance allin ev constitutes and it was not a big part, maybe a quarter. Maybe NoahSD? Ergh don't remember, but it wasn't someone pulling numbers out of his ass. It seems intuitive as well I think.

If I'm reading your post correctly I have to disagree Mg. Dumping ev all over the place hurts but is tangiable. It's when you run really bad situationally for a few weeks that you really start to doubt wether you ever had any idea of how to play the game in the first place

hmmm I suppose it's different for everyone and respect your opinion, From a mental game perspective, honestly it's a lot easier for me to understand that hey I ran into the top of his range. Or I ran into another set. But when you constantly can't win when getting it in, It really takes a toll on you. Just my opinion. I have had both happened to me I'm sure everyone has there own opinions.

both suck....^^

Yeah sure, if you took me for attacking it wasn't my intention. Just disagreed is all

The AIEV discussion always runs the same course. I can tell you that nobody who is running way below will think it is insignificant. I am down 30k on the year and feels pretty ****ing real. That is about 50-60 BI of 200-1k

OP, it would be much better if you posted the graph in bb's. You say your average stake is 400 which you then divide by the amount under ev, but for all we know you could be running bad at higher stakes while running good at lower stakes. Unless I'm mistaken here?

As for the lack of graphs showing above ev graphs in this forum, yeah they probably don't get posted as often as their counterparts, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of players you see playing high stakes have ran net total above ev during the careers.

Since my last post in this thread I've dropped 25 buyins in ev fwiw, best to stay away from discussions such as these

Hey guys here's some pretty thorough and seemingly credible (within reason) analysis on 571 million hands and 290 million flops. Of course this may not take into account OP's site, but it's pretty comprehensive. There are 7 parts, here's first and last. At those numbers, there wasn't hardly an deviation from the "norms". The variation you talk about is sick....but crazy things do happen (and are guaranteed to happen) with enough occurrences.


http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part1/


http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part7/

I realize the study is a little different than the thread topic, but interesting, nonetheless.

Nick would you mind providing some cliffs? I read some of it but it's a lot to process. thanks

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Everytime you start up a session, like the first hand you get dealt a big hand, get it in and get sucked out on. And it just continues. Everyday you play. You never run very good, you just run bad and normal. For years.

You feel cursed. Like the universe hates you and wants you to fail. Like the world is normal for everyone else, but the exception is you, where normal stopped working and is replaced with something else, steered by someone else.

It makes you feel paranoid, cursed, bitter, heartbroken and rabidly furious at life. If you could just get the entity responsible you would do things to it that jail wouldn't be enough for.

But you keep playing. Because you're a ****ing beast and you crush. And they all shall lose their money.

wow thats exacltly how i felt last 14 month.

(EXCERPT FROM PART 7)
Conclusions


I predicted 50 extra paired flops per 100K, and the result came up a little less but still very significant, and is the largest single effect measured.
Rank Bias was already quantified empirically in Part 2 and broken down further to specific patterns in Part 4, resulting in the 3 predictions below.
I predicted a shortage of “Connector & 1-gap” and “Connector & 2-gap” due to Rank Bias, and it was significantly short in every dataset, averaging more than -3 SD.
I predicted a surplus of “Connector & 3-gap” due to Rank Bias, and this was true in every pattern but the average confidence was less than 98%, so the effect is small if it exists.
I predicted extra 3-straights and that turned out to be weak, showing in only two datasets.
I said that monotone flops would have a surplus if players tended to fold unsuited hands more than 3x as often as suited hands since they naturally occur at a 3:1 ratio. The surplus averaged over 3 SD, so players do favor suited hands to see the flop.
The Rank Bias and Pair Bias effects are consistent and predictable. The Suitedness Bias is smaller and a little more inconsistent, but in some game structures it is significant (relatively speaking). The only effect that may be useful to understand in actual game play seems to be the general Rank Bias effect, but probably not specific patterns. An example of utilizing the general effect is described in the post Testing Barry Greenstein’s claim. The other effects are so small that it takes a huge sample to even recognize them.

Why do poker sites not routinely summarize their statistics like this and publish them? I think the major sites probably already know a lot of what I’ve written about here. They have probably run the stats and found that community cards are not 100% random. But it took me 30 pages of explanation to describe why that happens honestly with a random deal. Unless everything came out nice and neat and evenly distributed, it may just be too much trouble to convince users why Aces will come up less than 1/13 of the flopped cards in the long run, and why pairs show up on the flop 7 standard deviations more often than they “should” in 200 million flops. Publishing such counter-intuitive stats might not be the confidence builder that some people would like to see, it might in fact just create more controversy.

Another reason is summed up nicely by one of the 2+2 mods in this post.

“Because this is nearly impossible. Let’s say I own a poker site, and I publish the hole card distribution. Rigtard A then claims that he flops sets too often, so I show post-flop results. Rigtard B claims there is a new-deposit boomswitch and a cashout boomswitch, so I produce data about players winning and losing when they do each of these things. Rigtard C claims that shortstacks win too much in tournaments. And on and on and on and on it goes.

You’re basically asking them to prove a negative, that poker isn’t rigged. There are just way too many possibilities to make that realistic IMO.”

Fortunately I don’t have to worry about any demands to “prove it” or “I don’t believe the data”. Anyone who truly wants to do the work themselves can reproduce my results. I have no agenda other than showing objectively that flops are not 100% random and there are quantifiable card removal effects. But the data also shows that the deal is random and player behavior is what alters the flop distribution. I’ll be happy to provide methods and source code and save you a few hundred hours.

In future posts we’ll be examining Turn & River cards and the patterns they form, and whether suck-outs happen at the expected frequencies, and if not then why not. I’m also already working on an All-In Analysis with more detail than anyone has ever published before.

Please point out any errors I’ve made in this post or anywhere else. Comments are open and welcome.

i really wish he wouldn't use the phrase "flops are not 100% random" since people can so easily cherrypick that (technically incorrect) phrase and ignore the whole point of his article, which is that observed flops are biased. interesting read nonetheless

If people tend to see the flop with pocket pairs, wouldn't that sway the data a bit in the direction that you will see slightly more paired flops then you would think.

First line in the conclusion:

"....predicted 50 extra paired flops per 100K, and the result came up a little less but still very significant, and is the largest single effect measured."

ACR is a joke, first deposit they double charge me, don't reimburse me on the double charge AND don't even credit my account for the double charge. Companies like this that KNOW they're going out of business have NO incentive to reward good play/play by the rules as they are unregulated and have a limited window to be successful. Just an analogy, look at companies like Enron as they were on their way out. I know you must think "How can you compare a company like Enron to an online poker site?" Simple; when a company knows they're going under as more states regulate poker on their own they will do anything to accumulate as much wealth and try and make off like a bandit. Bovada is the only site I would semi-trust and even still I would not keep any large amounts in your roll. Don't kid yourself, a company that is unregulated that knows they have 3 more years in the business has no reason to keep paying you 90k every 1/3 year. Stay away from ACR and keep minimal balances on Bovada. Move to canada or las vegas bro. honestly.

P.S. Not to mention this is the ONLY site (between Bovada, BOL, and ACR) i would consistently get disconnected from with a full internet connection and they REFUSED to reimburse for lost sit n go money. I would email them during my disconnection to prove i have full internet connection. I was a turbo and hyper turbo sit n go player; when you're disconnected for 5-10 minutes you are blinded out in any hyper turbo as your hand gets insta-mucked when you're "sitting out" (in other words people would hit call as fast as possible and I would muck my hand in the BB or SB while I "lost connection")

what does this post have to do with running under ev? Take your crying to the acr thread

I truly believe a few years from now that things will come out on how winning players across multiple sites were cheated or had their winnings minimized in some fashion. <Not sure when I turned riggie but I feel like OP>

They do run good. Bovada wants All games even so they deals cards in a way to even off the games. I am 100% convinced of this. Good players can still win they will just win much less and have bigger swings due to how the deal cards