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

[action man]

I'm not sure if this is true, or the person I heard it from made it up (can't remember who or when I heard it from), but similar to hobeybadgers point.

A poker theorist ran a 4 handed holdem flip between 4 random computerised players. He ran millions of flips,expecting the players win/loss lines to rise and fall, crossing in the middle as variance would suggest. Supposedly, 2 players won the whole way and 2 lost, apparently disproving variance over x million sample size of completely random flips.

As I say, could be BS as I have spent a lot of time in gala, but its a good story nonetheless lol

I read a few years back about an experiment in which several identical poker bots were set to play each other. They all had identical skill levels and were running on identical processors. And they played something like 20m hands - i.e. more hands than any human could ever play lifetime. At the end of this period some of the bots were 'winning' millions and others were losing millions.

The experiment proved that a lifetime of poker play is NOWHERE NEAR long enough for variance to even out.

Or you could just point to Jamie Gold - no matter what happens to him in poker in the future, he will end his life having run above EV.

wow thats a depressing post.

The Mtt variance is obviously where you ping your 3 outers, in big live events or in 20r's online

agreed that a lifetime sample cant really prove if someone is a winner in mtts.
the best indicator has always been respect from peers.

[Woodsey]

I'm not sure if this is true, or the person I heard it from made it up (can't remember who or when I heard it from), but similar to hobeybadgers point.

A poker theorist ran a 4 handed holdem flip between 4 random computerised players. He ran millions of flips,expecting the players win/loss lines to rise and fall, crossing in the middle as variance would suggest. Supposedly, 2 players won the whole way and 2 lost, apparently disproving variance over x million sample size of completely random flips.

As I say, could be BS as I have spent a lot of time in gala, but its a good story nonetheless lol

I read a few years back about an experiment in which several identical poker bots were set to play each other. They all had identical skill levels and were running on identical processors. And they played something like 20m hands - i.e. more hands than any human could ever play lifetime. At the end of this period some of the bots were 'winning' millions and others were losing millions.

The experiment proved that a lifetime of poker play is NOWHERE NEAR long enough for variance to even out.

Or you could just point to Jamie Gold - no matter what happens to him in poker in the future, he will end his life having run above EV.

wow thats a depressing post.

The Mtt variance is obviously where you ping your 3 outers, in big live events or in 20r's online

agreed that a lifetime sample cant really prove if someone is a winner in mtts.
the best indicator has always been respect from peers.

And what is your job again?   

[Honeybadger]

We had a lovely afternoon chatting about maths and then someone made it personal

Play nicely

If you're referring to my last post, I was being complimentary to the person I was referring to...

[Woodsey]

We had a lovely afternoon chatting about maths and then someone made it personal

Play nicely

If you're referring to my last post, I was being complimentary to the person I was referring to...

And what about the other two?   













Ok that's my shit stirring done, I'm outta here 

[Honeybadger]

We had a lovely afternoon chatting about maths and then someone made it personal

Play nicely

If you're referring to my last post, I was being complimentary to the person I was referring to...

And what about the other two?   





Ok that's my shit stirring done, I'm outta here 

I have never played with one of the other two, and have only ever played DC cash games with the other. So I have no comments to make on their tournament prowess.

[Woodsey]

Good swerve Stu 

[Honeybadger]

Thanks pal

[Tal]

Tbf it's a Herbie thread so I think that sort of thing is encouraged.

[mondatoo]

Are we to accept that Rastafish, Wadey and Alex are on the right side of variance and Key, Keith and Mitch are on the other side.

Yes, thats the whole point.

I take it this is meant with regards to results at DTD ?

Those on the "other side" ain't done to shabbily.

[EvilPie]

Are we to accept that Rastafish, Wadey and Alex are on the right side of variance and Key, Keith and Mitch are on the other side.

Yes, thats the whole point.

Unless Alex' true ROI is about 5000% then he's on the wrong side of it as well.

Also if Keys, Keith or Mitch's true ROIs are 0% then any cash means they're on the right side of it.

Also I think Keys' little win in Australia put him on the desired side of the graph.

[claypole]

In simple terms at least all this mathematical analysis (which FWIW i know is accurate) just confirms the game is predominately driven by luck, rather than skill which means those that stay on the ride side of variance should continue to avoid the tax man - phew glad thats sorted

[tikay]

Are we to accept that Rastafish, Wadey and Alex are on the right side of variance and Key, Keith and Mitch are on the other side.

Yes, thats the whole point.

Yep. Furthermore one of those three 'right side of variance guys' realises this and, in fact, has stated this several times in his diary. And guess which one of those three is actually a really good player who understands poker...?

Is it me?

[mondatoo]

In simple terms at least all this mathematical analysis (which FWIW i know is accurate) just confirms the game is predominately driven by luck, rather than skill which means those that stay on the ride side of variance should continue to avoid the tax man - phew glad thats sorted

Sick Maths brag

[smashedagain]

Are we to accept that Rastafish, Wadey and Alex are on the right side of variance and Key, Keith and Mitch are on the other side.

Yes, thats the whole point.

Yep. Furthermore one of those three 'right side of variance guys' realises this and, in fact, has stated this several times in his diary. And guess which one of those three is actually a really good player who understands poker...?

Is it me?

lol. I saw you had posted, not actually read the last four pages but just about to. Had a few hours off from Blonde and spent some quality time with the wife tonight.

Putting Alex in the group of 3 was my little joke Stu, but it goes to show that in a subtle way I do understand. Mitch has also collected a few Nice HerbieMob flags this year.

Just one note I have just posted whats running through my head and shot names out and I am obv not wanting to upset people. As you might imagine I am getting a lot of pm's here and on Facebook offering advice, pointing out other players with no Flags but worth $millon from poker and some who have recorded winnings of $millon plus who don't have a pot to pee in etc.  I am loving the thread and hope plenty of people are learning from it.

[Boba Fett]

There is still a lot of fish out there but games are starting to get tougher, there are more good players out there and people are getting better quickly.  To stay ahead you really need to stay on top of your game, go over hands with people, ask opinions, talk strategy with players you respect, try to analyse hands that you have seen from other players and work out what they are doing good that is different from you.  If you dont do this you will be left behind and you never fully notice until you hit a downswing. 

From the posts Ive read from you it sounded like that when you where "winning for fun" you felt your game was perfectly suited for the games you were playing and Id guess you didnt put in much work in your game.  If you're serious about continuing to make a living from poker you have to break down your game, work out what you do well and find ways to implement it more and either eliminate the things your doing wrong or find ways to make it work.  If you do this and can learn from it, it should naturally filter through to both your online and live game and you will feel much more comfortable and confident at the table and you wont need to worry about if you're socialising too much.

I agree with Pleno, maybe give online a try.  There are so many games on so many networks there has to be something that you feel you would enjoy playing and could realistically beat.  Sharing HHs with people that can give you good advice will improve your game much quicker than playing live a couple times per week (more hands to look over, quicker turnaround time between identifying a leak, correcting it and then implementing the change to your game) and hopefully things can turn around before you lose whatever money you're prepared to lose at poker and you're forced to find other means of income.

If you're not prepared to put in the work then it may be time to face reality and find another source of income to support your family while playing poker on the side and look for the binks.