Confidence at an all time low so playing badly and clueless.

[Honeybadger]

Best advice: buy a player a beer who has achieved consistent live MTT results over last 12 months ... there is a very good chance that the player drinking your beer is actually a net expected loser in live poker tournaments.

FYP

You could pick out a large number of players who have had great results over the last 12 months, and many of them are bad players with a negative expectation in poker. That's just how variance in poker works - 12 months of live tournaments is a TINY sample size.

BTW this would not apply to the example you gave, of Chris Brammer. He is clearly a very strong player (and would be even if he had had a bad last 12 months). But my point is that just picking someone who has done consistently well for 12 months is very, very far from a guarantee that they are actually anything other than just on a heater.

In fact from what I gather from this thread Jason himself was on a heater for a couple of years a while back. I have no idea whether or not Jason is actually a good player since I have never played with him. However, the one thing I am certain of is that the two year period he went through when he was 'final tabling for fun' has almost no significance in determining how good he is at poker. 

[MANTIS01]

Best advice: buy a player a beer who has achieved consistent live MTT results over last 12 months ... there is a very good chance that the player drinking your beer is actually a net expected loser in live poker tournaments.

FYP

You could pick out a large number of players who have had great results over the last 12 months, and many of them are bad players with a negative expectation in poker. That's just how variance in poker works - 12 months of live tournaments is a TINY sample size.

BTW this would not apply to the example you gave, of Chris Brammer. He is clearly a very strong player (and would be even if he had had a bad last 12 months). But my point is that just picking someone who has done consistently well for 12 months is very, very far from a guarantee that they are actually anything other than just on a heater.

In fact from what I gather from this thread Jason himself was on a heater for a couple of years a while back. I have no idea whether or not Jason is actually a good player since I have never played with him. However, the one thing I am certain of is that the two year period he went through when he was 'final tabling for fun' has almost no significance in determining how good he is at poker. 

People try and make out they're innocent victims of variance when things go wrong but the truth is they're inevitably contributing to their own downward spiral. In op I get the impression the main objective is giggles and looking up history to beat other players down. This don't pay the bills. When you're in a rut I say forget any mystical variance bogeymen and concentrate on the job in hand because that is all you can control. If I was busto I wouldn't see a £150 comp as some kinda step down. Rather it's the level I'm at, and prob lucky to be playing in the comp at all. In the here and now I have a chance to replenish my bankroll, do my confidence the world of good, start a new cycle of success, and hell win a game of poker. So I would play hard and not give my oppos one inch of advantage, sure I would still have fun but I wouldn't be too proud to give it my best shot. I wouldn't waste my time doing or saying anything that isn't going to help achieve that ambition. Can Jason say he played his best game that day? If he cannot then any talk of variance is poppycock, variance is certeris paribus or something?, and if you play bad that ain't ceteris paribus.

I disagree two years of 'final tabling for fun' has no significance in determining how good a guy is at poker today. It is the building blocks of your current mentality so it's easy to think somebody can become a too casual player when success comes easy at first. In fact fellow players have stated itt noticing a change in Jason's demeanour at the table, so I would say it's that rather than variance that is the culprit. Anyway, like I say it's the only thing you can change so the only thing worth talking about.

Eye of the tiger Jason, like Rocky chasing the chicken in the 2nd one.

[StuartHopkin]

I have to give up 50% of any profits but that's a small price to pay

Too easy ....

[EvilPie]

I have to give up 50% of any profits but that's a small price to pay

Too easy ....

It was meant to be . Can't believe nobody picked it up before now.

[NEWY]

Best advice: buy a player a beer who has achieved consistent live MTT results over last 12 months ... there is a very good chance that the player drinking your beer is actually a net expected loser in live poker tournaments.

FYP

You could pick out a large number of players who have had great results over the last 12 months, and many of them are bad players with a negative expectation in poker. That's just how variance in poker works - 12 months of live tournaments is a TINY sample size.

BTW this would not apply to the example you gave, of Chris Brammer. He is clearly a very strong player (and would be even if he had had a bad last 12 months). But my point is that just picking someone who has done consistently well for 12 months is very, very far from a guarantee that they are actually anything other than just on a heater.

In fact from what I gather from this thread Jason himself was on a heater for a couple of years a while back. I have no idea whether or not Jason is actually a good player since I have never played with him. However, the one thing I am certain of is that the two year period he went through when he was 'final tabling for fun' has almost no significance in determining how good he is at poker. 

People try and make out they're innocent victims of variance when things go wrong but the truth is they're inevitably contributing to their own downward spiral. In op I get the impression the main objective is giggles and looking up history to beat other players down. This don't pay the bills. When you're in a rut I say forget any mystical variance bogeymen and concentrate on the job in hand because that is all you can control. If I was busto I wouldn't see a £150 comp as some kinda step down. Rather it's the level I'm at, and prob lucky to be playing in the comp at all. In the here and now I have a chance to replenish my bankroll, do my confidence the world of good, start a new cycle of success, and hell win a game of poker. So I would play hard and not give my oppos one inch of advantage, sure I would still have fun but I wouldn't be too proud to give it my best shot. I wouldn't waste my time doing or saying anything that isn't going to help achieve that ambition. Can Jason say he played his best game that day? If he cannot then any talk of variance is poppycock, variance is certeris paribus or something?, and if you play bad that ain't ceteris paribus.

I disagree two years of 'final tabling for fun' has no significance in determining how good a guy is at poker today. It is the building blocks of your current mentality so it's easy to think somebody can become a too casual player when success comes easy at first. In fact fellow players have stated itt noticing a change in Jason's demeanour at the table, so I would say it's that rather than variance that is the culprit. Anyway, like I say it's the only thing you can change so the only thing worth talking about.

Eye of the tiger Jason, like Rocky chasing the chicken in the 2nd one.

I like this a lot. makes lots of sense.

[Honeybadger]

I disagree two years of 'final tabling for fun' has no significance in determining how good a guy is at poker today.

Yh, I didn't quite phrase it correctly. What I meant was that the fact that someone has had a good year or two of results is not especially significant as evidence as to whether this player is any good at poker or not.

I'd guess that less than 1 in 20 of the players who are regulars on the live tournament circuit have the ability, temperament, discipline, work ethic and stamina to theoretically have a very good ROI in the live tournaments they enter (let's arbitrarily say this would be 100% ROI for tourneys of up to a £1k buy-in, and less than this for bigger tourneys like EPTs). So pick any tournament regular at random and there is around a 5% chance that he is a really good player.

Now pick any player at random from a list of players who have 'achieved consistent live MTT results over last 12 months'. Would it still be only a 5% chance that this player is a really good player? Of course not. The fact that he has achieved consistent results over the last 12 months does make it more likely that this particular guy is a very strong player. But it does not increase the chances as much as many people would think. I'd suggest that the chances of this player being a very strong one would still be less than 50%. My figures are unlikely to be absolutely correct here, since I have just guessed rather than running variance simulators. But they are likely to be roughly in the right ballpark (I am probably being a little generous in my numbers rather than the other way round BTW).

Which means that if you show me a player who has 'achieved consistent live MTT results over last 12 months', there is less than a 50% chance that this player is actually a great player, an expert whose advice is worth buying him a few drinks for.

On the same subject... of the 1 in 20 players who are truly excellent at live tournament poker, a scary amount of them will fail to hit their expectation over the course of their tournament careers (of course a small number of them will outstrip expectation by a HUGE amount). In fact a small portion of these truly excellent players will end up net losers over their lifetimes. And a much greater portion of these excellent players will be net losers over any given five year stretch. This is just the effect of short-term variance, coupled with the fact that your entire live tournament career never leaves the short term. And, of course, this is precisely why playing live tournaments for a living is not a realistic thing to do.

Should any of this be in your mind when you are sat at the poker table playing a tournament? Or when you are analysing your bust out hand to see if you did anything wrong? Of course not. We can't do anything to control the variance, and we don't gain anything by moaning and feeling sorry for ourselves. We should only focus on the things we can control, like our play.

But that does not mean that we should not be aware of the stark realities of variance in live poker tournaments. There are a LOT of guys out there who genuinely believe that they will be able to make a regular living from playing live poker tournaments. They think they understand variance, but they believe that as long as they play well consistently, and keep going when things get rough, they will succeed. In my opinion a very large % of these guys are doomed to failure - they will never out-run variance. They are engaged in a completely unrealistic pursuit, and their success depends on them simply getting lucky. I am not saying they should not play live tournaments, and I am certainly not saying they are -EV in these tournaments. All I am saying is that they should not rely on their tournament winnings to provide them with a regular income over, say, a five year period.

[robyong]

I have 5 years of live MTT and cash game player data that indicates otherwise.

Can you tell us live monkeys the maths behind ;

- number of live MTT we need to play to know we are a winning player and not a luck box

- number of live cash game hours we need to play to know we are a winning player and not a luck box

I'm not saying the online theorists are not correct, just wanna understand the maths, as my figures show consistent live winners at DTD, it's a small % but broadly the same people. My numbers do not take into account player travel expenses though.

Cheers Rob

[redarmi]

Problem is one of selection bias in your db Rob.  If people are playing a significant sample of tournaments they are more likely to have been the winners because a lot of the losers (even if they could have become winners) drop out and stop playing so in effect your database by its very nature is more likely to include winners amongst those that play a significant number of tourneys.  Of course there will be some long terms winners in it but, realistically, your database is probably a better indicator of those players that have run well than those that are good.

[mondatoo]

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/

This is the best explanation I've read with regards to variance.

[redarmi]

That is a truly superb link.  On that basis I am withdrawing  my offer of 15% of you today Ray ;-)  (only joking obv)

[Honeybadger]

Rob, if you look at any five year period of time there will be a group of players who have been consistent winners throughout that period. Some of these will be excellent players, but others will not be so good. How can a mediocre/bad player have consistently good results for five years? It seems really unlikely right? Well yes it IS unlikely that any one particular weak player will have a consistently successful set of results over the next five years. But if you get a group of 1000 such players and let them play regular tournaments for the next five years, at the end of that period a reasonable number of them will have posted consistently good results. It is something called 'survivor bias' - you only notice the ones that have succeeded and assume that their success means they are definitely good rather than just lucky. Its like that old expression about a million monkeys with a million typewriters.

[kinboshi]

Even kinboshi won a deepstack.

Abridged version.

[gouty]

Best thread on here for ages this.

I agree that checking someone's Hendon Mob is not as good a guide to their play as simply observing them for a couple of hours at the table. However, it can be very useful to determine whether a player has any experience of big final tables or heads up ability etc.

[atdc21]

agree^  just like the game of poker , which is a game of incomplete information, so is a herbiemob.
It will give us the major successes a player has had but not all the failures, but can be useful as a general guide/pointer.
Sometimes you will get a springer in the market, bit like the horse that won 5 open PTPs in Ireland then wins its first run in a maiden by 15lths at 20/1 and no one has heard of it(although not as probable nowadays with all the internet access.

[Honeybadger]

Roy Cooke once wrote a really good article about this subject, using the million monkey theme as an inspiration. He imagines 100,000 monkeys in a room playing HU card cutting (highest card wins) starting at $10 a game.

After the first round half the monkeys have been eliminated and half the monkeys have $20. After the second round a quarter of the monkeys have survived and each has $80. After x number of rounds there are only a small number of monkeys left, and each of them is a multi millionaire. And these surviving monkeys are really pleased with themselves and their card cutting skills. Many are celebrities and their card cutting skills are admired by others. After all, they must be the best card cutters around right? Some are now writing strategy articles for Cardcutter magazine. Other may even have secured sponsorship based on their undoubted card cutting prowess.

The point of this story is to warn against survivor bias and to warn against attaching too much significance to skill in a pursuit that has so much luck involved in it.

I am NOT saying that tournaments are all about luck. And I am not saying that everyone who has done well in tournaments over the last few years at DTD or elsewhere are all weak players who have simply got lucky. However, I AM saying that you cannot simply go to your data and pick out, say, 20 guys who have done well in tournaments at DTD over the last few years and make the assumption that these guys must therefore all be very good players. Some of them really will be excellent players. But probably around half of these guys will not be much good at all.

I realise this sounds counter-intuitive. After all, part of the human experience is based on using results to inform our judgements. The problem is that this does not work properly in gambling, due to the high luck factor that is present in the short-medium term. Five years of playing DTD tournaments five nights a week is nowhere near enough to get out of the short term.

Which is why I believe there is no such thing as a live professional poker tournament player.