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

[Doobs]

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

You really don't get variance

[Doobs]

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.

Surely you can get enough from OPR to know that some people deserve to be lifetime winners? 

If you look at things like the percentage of time finishes in top 10, ROI, tournament size etc, you should be fairly confident you could find better players than you would by asking a bunch of poker players who they respect.

Where as a lifetime sample may never be enough to decide if a once a month live player is a winner, you can be pretty confident that some mass multitablers are after a few months data.  By that stage you will have sample sizes into the tens of thousands of several pieces of data. 

I use way less data than that to produce reasonable distribution for most of the things I do in the real world.

[david3103]

I was so chuffed with my live results this year until people started posting reality checks in this thread.

Thanks for that.

[skolsuper]

I was so chuffed with my live results this year until people started posting reality checks in this thread.

Thanks for that.

Maybe you've been running really bad for years and you're supposed to be a millionaire.

[kinboshi]

I was so chuffed with my live results this year until people started posting reality checks in this thread.

Thanks for that.

Maybe you've been running really bad for years and you're supposed to be a millionaire.

Said someone to James just before the Aussie Millions.

[david3103]

I was so chuffed with my live results this year until people started posting reality checks in this thread.

Thanks for that.

Maybe you've been running really bad for years and you're supposed to be a millionaire.

That'll be it.

[JK]

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

You really don't get variance

I really do get variance. I just typed this on my phone while walking down the road lol

[cambridgealex]

Love this thread.

I have a theory that everyone who considers themselves a serious poker player/fan/hobbyist/pro etc probably ran like god in the first 6-12 months of them taking up the game. Nobody likes to lose, and most new players who ran badly when they first started playing probably stopped before they were able to experience some positive variance, which would have been enough for them to take an interest in their game.

Definitely agree with this too

Hmm I can definitely see this is true in some cases. Personally I lost money at poker in the first 2 years since I started playing. I started off with £10 freezeouts at reileys in Cambridge and didnt cash for the first 20 probably, lost quite a lot of my university money lol playing 50/1 at DTD and Alea before I had a clue what I was doing.

I couldn't give it up though because I thought I was smart enough to learn how to be a winner and I can't really give up on something just because of my personality.

I agree with whoever said that it's respect of your peers / legit sickos that means a lot. For example, my results prove almost nothing about my ability, but the fact that Keith and Keys backed me, probably gave me more confidence than anything else ever has, and when friends/sickos say nice things etc, that means more than any 2 year heater means.

This has got me thinking about people charging markup for events they have no record in.

I knew before I played my first £1k that I'd be profitable in it. How? I had no results at all, how could I justify any markup or even selling at 1.0?

To my mind, I knew the players that were playing it. DTD locals, the same guys I've played £50 comps with, despite my blank canvas and their hendonmob full of cashes and flags, if the field was full of those guys then I knew I'd be +EV in it. Of course, you can't expect anyone else to believe you but you can know deep down that you are a winning player.

Now where does delusion come into that?! I've read the same sort of thing on staking proposals from guys that in my opinion, definitely aren't winners! Who's to say who's right and wrong? The guys with the results/cashes/flags? Oh but that could all mean nothing too remember...

[Woodsey]

Love this thread.

I have a theory that everyone who considers themselves a serious poker player/fan/hobbyist/pro etc probably ran like god in the first 6-12 months of them taking up the game. Nobody likes to lose, and most new players who ran badly when they first started playing probably stopped before they were able to experience some positive variance, which would have been enough for them to take an interest in their game.

Definitely agree with this too

Hmm I can definitely see this is true in some cases. Personally I lost money at poker in the first 2 years since I started playing. I started off with £10 freezeouts at reileys in Cambridge and didnt cash for the first 20 probably, lost quite a lot of my university money lol playing 50/1 at DTD and Alea before I had a clue what I was doing.

I couldn't give it up though because I thought I was smart enough to learn how to be a winner and I can't really give up on something just because of my personality.

I agree with whoever said that it's respect of your peers / legit sickos that means a lot. For example, my results prove almost nothing about my ability, but the fact that Keith and Keys backed me, probably gave me more confidence than anything else ever has, and when friends/sickos say nice things etc, that means more than any 2 year heater means.

This has got me thinking about people charging markup for events they have no record in.

I knew before I played my first £1k that I'd be profitable in it. How? I had no results at all, how could I justify any markup or even selling at 1.0?

To my mind, I knew the players that were playing it. DTD locals, the same guys I've played £50 comps with, despite my blank canvas and their hendonmob full of cashes and flags, if the field was full of those guys then I knew I'd be +EV in it. Of course, you can't expect anyone else to believe you but you can know deep down that you are a winning player.

Now where does delusion come into that?! I've read the same sort of thing on staking proposals from guys that in my opinion, definitely aren't winners! Who's to say who's right and wrong? The guys with the results/cashes/flags? Oh but that could all mean nothing too remember...

And there is the beginning of an entirely separate discussion. Not directed at you but just generally about us as poker players and our blind beliefs whether its true or not  

[SuuPRlim]

I still can't re-affirm more how much of a bad idea I think taking up online tournaments is Jason. Also, don't get staked for live comps that's the LAST thing you should do imo.

"Variance" doesn't actually exist practically in poker either imo, because the "long run" is never reached - the long run for say $2/$4nl online, lets say this is 2,500,000 hands - even if you play that (and some people have) you haven't truly reached the long run because so many different scenarios of $2/$4nl online that you've not really play 2.5m hands.

2/4nl online prolly the most sterile type of game as well, so lets use an example like $5/$10plo, you run very badly on average in deepstack spots, you run very good vs the weaker players when they play the game these things are going to have a phenomenal impact on your results and there is no reasonable liklihood you should run well one day in a very soft game just because you ran bad the previous time the game was like this. I know players with 7figure bankrolls and players with low 6 figure bankrolls and really the only difference between them is that they ran better when games were soft and huge than when they were small and tough.

Don't even consider this stuff imo, just understand that we're all at the mercy of good or bad fortune (like in any walk of life) and try play the best you can at every juncture, focus on the quality of your play, you're mental control and temperament alongside good financial management - put yourself in good spots and let the cards fall where they are going to fall.

LIVE CASH GAMES JASON. You like live poker, you know where the games are and the people who play them, you don't need a monstrously big exposure to make money even intially and you can drive around - banter in some of the DC games is top class!

[Doobs]

I still can't re-affirm more how much of a bad idea I think taking up online tournaments is Jason. Also, don't get staked for live comps that's the LAST thing you should do imo.

"Variance" doesn't actually exist practically in poker either imo, because the "long run" is never reached - the long run for say $2/$4nl online, lets say this is 2,500,000 hands - even if you play that (and some people have) you haven't truly reached the long run because so many different scenarios of $2/$4nl online that you've not really play 2.5m hands.

2/4nl online prolly the most sterile type of game as well, so lets use an example like $5/$10plo, you run very badly on average in deepstack spots, you run very good vs the weaker players when they play the game these things are going to have a phenomenal impact on your results and there is no reasonable liklihood you should run well one day in a very soft game just because you ran bad the previous time the game was like this. I know players with 7figure bankrolls and players with low 6 figure bankrolls and really the only difference between them is that they ran better when games were soft and huge than when they were small and tough.

Don't even consider this stuff imo, just understand that we're all at the mercy of good or bad fortune (like in any walk of life) and try play the best you can at every juncture, focus on the quality of your play, you're mental control and temperament alongside good financial management - put yourself in good spots and let the cards fall where they are going to fall.

LIVE CASH GAMES JASON. You like live poker, you know where the games are and the people who play them, you don't need a monstrously big exposure to make money even intially and you can drive around - banter in some of the DC games is top class!

Isnt this just a feldmanesque come and play in my game fish type invitation? 

[action man]

hhaha, this is an article i wrote on my blog over 6 years ago. still think its of use here.

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2006

Have You Got Lucky?
it is important after a win in an Multi-tourney or Sit & go, to evealuate your game, and realise the pots which you won, could have gone the other way.
On very few occasions is it possible to win a, say 100 runner tourney without winning at least one coin flip (50-50) and a lot of the times you may be forced to put your chips in with say KQ v A10 where u are a 60/40 dog.
Often it can be easy after winning a tournament to feel like you have played very good poker and have deserved your win. At times like these you have to remember he times you have been lucky in a single pot and realise that this won't happen in every tourney. My own opinion is that you have to have luck on your side to win a tourney. The differnce between the good players and just the average players is that the good players give themselves the best possibe chance to get lucky by only getting involved in very few showdowns per tournament, this way they may only have to win say 3 coinflips per tourney as opposed to other weaker players who may need to win a lot more, due to their inabilty to steal pots and become more aggressive in the latter stages. I have seen many players who at one time were winning tourneys left right and centre, and they were last seen entering $2 bonus freerolls.

It is very naive to disregard luck in poker. But for a good player the luck comes, by why that they may be lucky not to get unlucky....

Ie they will go into a pot with AK v AQ in a showdown obviously the AK is about 73% favourite but if you are involved in 4 of these coups, you are favourite to lose your stack by the 4th time...

They say that good players don't understand how much luck is in the game and bad players don't realise how much skill is in he game. This is probably right, however bad players often endeavour to learn more about the skill in the game. It is also important for the good players to not learn but understand luck and don't get blinkered into thinking you are invincible, and never forget the times when you get lucky as this will help you take the beats that other players inflict on you.... because as they say "what comes around, goes around".........

[treefella]

hhaha, this is an article i wrote on my blog over 6 years ago. still think its of use here.

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2006

Have You Got Lucky?
it is important after a win in an Multi-tourney or Sit & go, to evealuate your game, and realise the pots which you won, could have gone the other way.
On very few occasions is it possible to win a, say 100 runner tourney without winning at least one coin flip (50-50) and a lot of the times you may be forced to put your chips in with say KQ v A10 where u are a 60/40 dog.
Often it can be easy after winning a tournament to feel like you have played very good poker and have deserved your win. At times like these you have to remember he times you have been lucky in a single pot and realise that this won't happen in every tourney. My own opinion is that you have to have luck on your side to win a tourney. The differnce between the good players and just the average players is that the good players give themselves the best possibe chance to get lucky by only getting involved in very few showdowns per tournament, this way they may only have to win say 3 coinflips per tourney as opposed to other weaker players who may need to win a lot more, due to their inabilty to steal pots and become more aggressive in the latter stages. I have seen many players who at one time were winning tourneys left right and centre, and they were last seen entering $2 bonus freerolls.

It is very naive to disregard luck in poker. But for a good player the luck comes, by why that they may be lucky not to get unlucky....

Ie they will go into a pot with AK v AQ in a showdown obviously the AK is about 73% favourite but if you are involved in 4 of these coups, you are favourite to lose your stack by the 4th time...

They say that good players don't understand how much luck is in the game and bad players don't realise how much skill is in he game. This is probably right, however bad players often endeavour to learn more about the skill in the game. It is also important for the good players to not learn but understand luck and don't get blinkered into thinking you are invincible, and never forget the times when you get lucky as this will help you take the beats that other players inflict on you.... because as they say "what comes around, goes around".........

Great stuff..
This is so true .... and to think you knew all this over 6 years ago . fk me you must of had it good back then  : )

[atdc21]

Excellent post from Action Man imo.

Inline with his post i think the following is worthy of thought.

To win a MTT tourney you will need luck and good timing, e.g

player a could get aces v kings 4 tournies in a row.
player b could get aces v kings 4 tournies in a row.

BUT the TIMING of when these hands occur in the tournament/and against whom can make a vast different to how much player a or player b win.
i.e
player a gets his aces in level one 3 times and final table once. They hold up all 3 times level one but lose final table he wins£500 say
player b gets his aces 3 times in level one and they hold, he then gets them on bubble and they lose, he wins£0
they could of both played as well as each other, but player a had better timing.
Very interesting discussions and opinions tho imo.

[SuuPRlim]

I still can't re-affirm more how much of a bad idea I think taking up online tournaments is Jason. Also, don't get staked for live comps that's the LAST thing you should do imo.

"Variance" doesn't actually exist practically in poker either imo, because the "long run" is never reached - the long run for say $2/$4nl online, lets say this is 2,500,000 hands - even if you play that (and some people have) you haven't truly reached the long run because so many different scenarios of $2/$4nl online that you've not really play 2.5m hands.

2/4nl online prolly the most sterile type of game as well, so lets use an example like $5/$10plo, you run very badly on average in deepstack spots, you run very good vs the weaker players when they play the game these things are going to have a phenomenal impact on your results and there is no reasonable liklihood you should run well one day in a very soft game just because you ran bad the previous time the game was like this. I know players with 7figure bankrolls and players with low 6 figure bankrolls and really the only difference between them is that they ran better when games were soft and huge than when they were small and tough.

Don't even consider this stuff imo, just understand that we're all at the mercy of good or bad fortune (like in any walk of life) and try play the best you can at every juncture, focus on the quality of your play, you're mental control and temperament alongside good financial management - put yourself in good spots and let the cards fall where they are going to fall.

LIVE CASH GAMES JASON. You like live poker, you know where the games are and the people who play them, you don't need a monstrously big exposure to make money even intially and you can drive around - banter in some of the DC games is top class!

Isnt this just a feldmanesque come and play in my game fish type invitation? 

shhhhhhhhh