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

[NEWY]

In the Grand National, the horses are of different standards. To make it a more even race, the best horse has to carry more weight than the second beat horse, who carries more than the third best horse...who carries more than the worst horse in the field.
So why dont they all cross the line together? And why is one horse 4/1 and another horse 200/1?

If they ran the race a million times, the favourite would win more times than any of the others. But it doesn't mean it will win once in 100 times.

Should you back outsiders for the sake of it because "anyone can win"? No.

In poker, staking Andrew Hulme would be better value than staking me, even if he failed to cash five times in a row and I won five comps ( my analogy, my rules!). Over a million comps, you would make more money.

The problem - taking us back to the original debate (call, BTW) - is that you can't get a million comps!

Is this why he carries more weight?

[Doobs]

Haven't read all the posts ITT but a general observation people are far too quick to blame variance for bad results..  Pretty sure, if people played better they would be far less concerned about 'variance' - I know when I play, that I am up against variance (granted, I haven't played enough to feel the full force - not many people have)  ...but far greater than that I'm up against myself and my own ability/temperament/focus.  People would do well to forget about variance and concentrate on looking at themselves, and their own game imo

I 100% agree with this post, I hear so many players blame variance for their own lack of success as well as the envy of other players achievements. My live stats for all players since DTD opened show live MTT and cash game variance is WAY WAY LESS than some of the comments on this thread, we have consistent winners at the same buy-ins.

If I put 100% of the buy-ins up and got 100% of the winnings, I believe it would be very profitable for me to;

- back Keith Johnson over 50 £2-£5 cash game sessions at the same stakes at DTD (8000 hands - not 2.5M!)

- back Roberto Romenello in 100 live £150 + £18 Deepstacks (100 comps - not 10,000, so player needs to win <£16,800 in prize money)

To be honest, if this want not the case, and I was way out, why do staking threads even exist? Players are selling themselves at 1.35 and there is no shortage of buyers.

Poker is a "performance related occupation" -  in a commission sales job (eg. recruitment) a person makes x calls, does x meetings, chases up x leads, converts x deals, there is no GTE that the person gets paid as they are on performance related pay, just like poker, but IN REALITY, most of my sales team earn the same commission each month, with the odd spike. There is luck in almost every aspect of life, when do we ever reach the long term of most of our decisions?

I am sure there will be a formula for variance and reaching the long term for my sales staff i.e. someone must do 20 million calls until the long term is reached and they know there true earnings, but in reality, things end up evening themselves out each month if my staff put the same effort in.

There is a great saying "There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

Cheers Rob

Just because people are willing to pay 1.7 for somebody, doesn't mean they are 1.7.  Even online where we have OPR and sharkscope and people put links to them in their posts, people are still willing to pay 1.3 for players who are barely better than break even over tens of thousands of tournaments.  People are either not using the information in front of them or are backing people for other reasons than to make a long run profit.

That saying about lies and statistics just reflects the fact that the vast majority of the population simply do not have enough understanding of statistics to realise that the saying is complete bollocks. 

Chris Moorman is clearly a great player, we can see over a long duration that he is a big winner at the game, I clicked on his sharkscope tee other day and he is on a $150k downswing on stars.  That is over the best part of 7000 games. 

Yet people still think they can tell the long run winners and losers in live MTTs over sample sizes that must be less than 1% of that.  You can have a better idea of who the winners and losers will be than pure pin sticking, but you really can't be anywhere close to sure.

If the statistics you use are relevant, and you have enough data, they can be very reliable, if you have taken a sample of 12 kids with autism then they clearly aren't.  It is badly used statistics that make people think the saying is relevant, and not statistics per se. 

I expect a decent proportion of the population still think Dr Wakefield was on to something.




   

[Honeybadger]

Its no coincidence that those who work hardest and are most determined are the "luckiest". This is the case with most things in life

This sounds nice, and there is a great deal of truth in it of course. There was that famous quote: "I am a great believer in luck; and I find that the harder I work the luckier I get".

But despite there being a great deal of truth in this, it is very far from the whole truth. In reality, many people will die and it would be possible to look back on every event in their lives and conclude that they had, on balance, been unlucky. And vice versa of course. As I made clear in my African child example, one lifetime is nowhere near enough for luck to even out. Not in life, not in poker.

The vast majority of people massively under-estimate the role of luck in life. This especially applies to successful people, to winners. They look back on, say, their successful career in business and attribute this primarily to themselves: their great ideas; their skills; their judgement; their hard work; their desire to succeed. If they were interviewed then they'd rarely mention anything to do with luck if asked about why they have been so successful. They'd say stuff like:

"I am a born winner, that's just the way I am."
"I think I just wanted it more than most people."
"If you want something enough, and work hard enough, you will succeed."
"I never gave up, that's why I won."
And of course, "Cream always rises."

If they are asked about whether they'd consider themselves to have been lucky they would likely say things like:
"You make your own luck in this world."
"I wasn't lucky, I deserve my success. I worked hard for it."

It's not that these guys would be wrong per se. There is a LOT of truth in what they say, and no doubt all the reasons they gave for their success were hugely important in explaining why they have done so well. But they won't tell the whole story, even though they think they do. There will be a huge amount of other variables, often invisible ones working behind the scenes, that also contributed to success. And many of these variables will have been beyond their control, and so were basically 'luck'.

Despite not being blessed with any great talent, I have done very well out of poker. Have I worked very hard at it? Yes. Have I continued to keep getting up every time I got knocked down? Yes. Have I 'wanted it' more than most people? Yes. Do these things alone explain my (relative) success? Not at all.

I could very well have gone broke through variance in the first few years of my career, before my bankroll was big enough to absorb the ups and downs of variance. I could very well have had a truly catastrophic run, twice as bad as the worst I have experienced (and I've had some REALLY bad ones), and this might have been too much for me to handle. For that matter, I could have contracted a serious illness that would have prevented me from playing poker. None of these things did I have any control over.

Yes, part of the reason for anyone's success is to do with their skills, their attitude, their hard work, their will to win. But there is ALWAYS a great deal of luck involved too. In every aspect of life. Just being born in the UK with food in our bellies automatically means we have been lucky compared to a child born starving in Africa.

There are also people who have been extremely successful in life and who are humble enough to realise that they have been very lucky. These guys are rare, but these are the ones that are really impressive - to be a huge winner at anything and yet maintain a sense of humility is something that only a very few people can do.

[DaveShoelace]

Totally awesome book on ^^^^ this subject called Fooled By Randomness, I'm starting to think Honeybadger may have written in.

[Honeybadger]

2. It is possible to take low variance lines when playing hands, is it generally accepted that these are losing plays in the long term.

I have done a LOT of thinking about this issue over the course of my gambling career. And my views are going to be a little contentious, especially with many of the younger new-school players.

I believe that in live poker it is necessary to make at least some concessions to variance, and to sometimes give up small amounts of EV in order to help reduce the effect of variance a little

I have had big arguments with friends who tell me I am talking nonsense, that we should always take the line that we believe is the most +EV, and that we should never let variance factor into our decision making. I think they are wrong.

Given that we are never able to reach the long term in live poker I think it is necessary to PAY to take away some of the swings. We do this by sometimes turning down very marginal +EV spots that are super high variance. For example, we see an extremely thin bluff spot - let's say we have to push all in on the river for £1,000 and we estimate that this bluff will earn us £5 in EV. We might sometimes choose to turn down this particular spot. We are costing ourselves a very small amount of money by turning it down. But we are also reducing our variance a LOT. In effect we are PAYING to reduce this variance - giving up a tiny amount of EV in order to buy a smoother ride.

The reason we need to make some very small concessions to variance is precisely because we can never reach the long-term in live poker. But we can pay a small amount to increase the frequency with which we reach CLOSE to our expected value over the short to medium term. Apart from anything, this is necessary simply to keep us sane. There is always something to be said for 'sanity EV'.

Many of those who have played with me think of me as an overly tight player, perhaps one with little imagination and little skill. One of the reasons for this is because I DO play a pretty tight style, aimed at reducing at least some of my variance. I believe this is necessary since I have a family to support and do not have the luxury of simply throwing caution to the wind and aiming for the stars like some of the younger players

When I grind online I never think this way though. I take any edge, however small, and make no concessions to variance. There are two reasons for this. First, edges are far smaller in online 6 max NLHE. If you start turning down any edges at all then it becomes impossible to beat the games. Second, it is possible to get much closer to the long-term in online poker. I have played well over a million hands of 6 max NL lifetime for example... I will never play anywhere close to that amount of hands in my entire live poker career. Most guys who have played live poker with me would be utterly shocked to see how I play when grinding 6max online. But the really good players would not be shocked at all - they get it.

[Honeybadger]

Totally awesome book on ^^^^ this subject called Fooled By Randomness, I'm starting to think Honeybadger may have written in.

Yep it is an AMAZING book. When I read it I just kept thinking "WOW! This is exactly how I have always thought about life and gambling."

[NEWY]

Its no coincidence that those who work hardest and are most determined are the "luckiest". This is the case with most things in life

This sounds nice, and there is a great deal of truth in it of course. There was that famous quote: "I am a great believer in luck; and I find that the harder I work the luckier I get".

But despite there being a great deal of truth in this, it is very far from the whole truth. In reality, many people will die and it would be possible to look back on every event in their lives and conclude that they had, on balance, been unlucky. And vice versa of course. As I made clear in my African child example, one lifetime is nowhere near enough for luck to even out. Not in life, not in poker.

The vast majority of people massively under-estimate the role of luck in life. This especially applies to successful people, to winners. They look back on, say, their successful career in business and attribute this primarily to themselves: their great ideas; their skills; their judgement; their hard work; their desire to succeed. If they were interviewed then they'd rarely mention anything to do with luck if asked about why they have been so successful. They'd say stuff like:

"I am a born winner, that's just the way I am."
"I think I just wanted it more than most people."
"If you want something enough, and work hard enough, you will succeed."
"I never gave up, that's why I won."
And of course, "Cream always rises."

If they are asked about whether they'd consider themselves to have been lucky they would likely say things like:
"You make your own luck in this world."
"I wasn't lucky, I deserve my success. I worked hard for it."

It's not that these guys would be wrong per se. There is a LOT of truth in what they say, and no doubt all the reasons they gave for their success were hugely important in explaining why they have done so well. But they won't tell the whole story, even though they think they do. There will be a huge amount of other variables, often invisible ones working behind the scenes, that also contributed to success. And many of these variables will have been beyond their control, and so were basically 'luck'.

I have done very well out of poker. Have I worked very hard at it? Yes. Have I continued to keep getting up every time I got knocked down? Yes. Have I 'wanted it' more than most people? Yes. Do these things alone explain my (relative) success? Not at all.

I could very well have gone broke through variance in the first few years of my career, before my bankroll was big enough to sustain the ups and downs of variance. I could very well have had a truly catastrophic run, twice as bad as the worst I have experienced (and I've had some REALLY bad ones), and this might have been too much for me to handle. For that matter, I could have contracted a serious illness that would have prevented me from playing poker. None of these things did I have any control over.

Yes, part of the reason for anyone's success is to do with their skills, their attitude, their hard work, their will to win. But there is ALWAYS a great deal of luck involved too. In every aspect of life. Just being born in the UK with food in our bellies automatically means we have been lucky compared to a child born starving in Africa.

There are also people who have been extremely successful in life and who are humble enough to realise that they have been extremely lucky. These guys are rare, but these are the ones that are really impressive - to be a huge winner at anything and yet maintain a sense of humility is something that only a very few people can do.

Not many people get rewarded these days without hard work. life in all aspects is tough.  If in the job interviews in your e.g they "got lucky" to land the job that is because they made the effort (worked hard) to go to this interview and sell themselves as best they can. You can choose to see it as a lucky break if you so choose and there may be an element of truth in that but I would see it as effort bein rewarded.  Most will have to go to many interviews and not get the 1st 2nd 3rd  job applied for. Those who keep knocking on doors will most likely be the ones who eventually "get lucky" and offered a job. Poker is similar in that those who play most who work hardesst who sell themselves best will most likely be most successful.  Of course luck is involved but if you keep knocking on doors eventually you will put yourself in a position to get lucky. I would imagine that of all the money won in poker there are more players that are considered good than players who jus got lucky. FWIW I am neither good nor lucky  

[NEWY]

I think my point was if there are things happening behind the scenes that we cant control.(variance) (in life and poker) Why worry about them, All we can do is work hard and do our best to try put ourselves in the best position to achieve the best possible outcome, and if something beyond our control happens to to ruin that, (nasty river card, Someone better gets job etc) then thats jus the way it is but we gave it our best chance. If we keep doing this eventually good will come because of it.

[DaveShoelace]

I believe that in live poker it is necessary to make at least some concessions to variance, and to sometimes give up small amounts of EV in order to help reduce the effect of variance a little

Agree with this, kinda. If the wrong end of the higher variance line is liable to put you on tilt, and tilt is a big problem for you, then the lower variance line potentially more profitable for you if it ensures you play well for longer.

Obviously if you consistently go the lower variance route then it becomes a crutch and costs you massively in the long run, which is why it should only be done if you are actively working on fixing a tilt issue (Heard their was a manuscript out there to help you do that).

[Sulphur man]

Thanks Jason for creating a quality debate, you do owe us something like this though
for all the trolling you do. Keep you're chin up and soak in the great advice this thread
has given.

My advice would be read Eckhart Tolle Power of Now. Has great views on ego and its workings.
Great diary any way. Big love you LEG-END

[Doobs]

2. It is possible to take low variance lines when playing hands, is it generally accepted that these are losing plays in the long term.

I have done a LOT of thinking about this issue over the course of my gambling career. And my views are going to be a little contentious, especially with many of the younger new-school players.

I believe that in live poker it is necessary to make at least some concessions to variance, and to sometimes give up small amounts of EV in order to help reduce the effect of variance a little

I have had big arguments with friends who tell me I am talking nonsense, that we should always take the line that we believe is the most +EV, and that we should never let variance factor into our decision making. I think they are wrong.

Given that we are never able to reach the long term in live poker I think it is necessary to PAY to take away some of the swings. We do this by sometimes turning down very marginal +EV spots that are super high variance. For example, we see an extremely thin bluff spot - let's say we have to push all in on the river for £1,000 and we estimate that this bluff will earn us £5 in EV. We might sometimes choose to turn down this particular spot. We are costing ourselves a very small amount of money by turning it down. But we are also reducing our variance a LOT. In effect we are PAYING to reduce this variance - giving up a tiny amount of EV in order to buy a smoother ride.

The reason we need to make some very small concessions to variance is precisely because we can never reach the long-term in live poker. But we can pay a small amount to increase the frequency with which we reach CLOSE to our expected value over the short to medium term. Apart from anything, this is necessary simply to keep us sane. There is always something to be said for 'sanity EV'.

Many of those who have played with me think of me as an overly tight player, perhaps one with little imagination and little skill. One of the reasons for this is because I DO play a pretty tight style, aimed at reducing at least some of my variance. I believe this is necessary since I have a family to support and do not have the luxury of simply throwing caution to the wind and aiming for the stars like some of the younger players

When I grind online I never think this way though. I take any edge, however small, and make no concessions to variance. There are two reasons for this. First, edges are far smaller in online 6 max NLHE. If you start turning down any edges at all then it becomes impossible to beat the games. Second, it is possible to get much closer to the long-term in online poker. I have played well over a million hands of 6 max NL lifetime for example... I will never play anywhere close to that amount of hands in my entire live poker career. Most guys who have played live poker with me would be utterly shocked to see how I play when grinding 6max online. But the really good players would not be shocked at all - they get it.

This makes no sense when applied to live cash.  Live cash and online cash are together just one big game.  You shouldn't be taking lower variance lines in one and not the other.  If it is right for your online game it must be right for your live game, and vice versa.  There may be psychological issues in place, as I know that I find it more painful to lose real cash I can touch than online cash of the same value.  It makes no real sense afterwards when I rationalise it, but it is definitely there every time it happens.

If you are playing live cash with higher blinds than you would in your normal online game or in a big tournament it can make much more sense.

A few years ago, I bust out of the EPT grand final and the WSOP main event very close to the money taking lines that I would not take now.  At the time I was thinking poker is just one big long game, got to attack the bubble, but now I realise I am never going to get above double figures lifetime in $10k + tournaments and I may not even get to double figures.  In the circumstances these $20k hits are always going to be significant in my lifetime poker earnings.

[Honeybadger]

To NEWY....

You are right, it is often counter-productive to focus on luck. Especially when this leads to us absolving ourselves of responsibility for our lives. Or when it leads to us being jealous of others who who 'run better than us'. Nothing good can come of this.

However... when we are successful in something it is often a VERY good idea to recognise how lucky we are. And to realise that we did not succeed purely through the things that we did. This is a great way of maintaining humility and keeping our feet on the ground. It is also an important way in which we can avoid hubris.

The thing is, it is NOT TRUE that everyone who is successful obtained their success solely through hard work, drive, skill, commitment. These things are (usually) essential to achieve success. But they are not enough. Everyone needs a bit of luck, or at least an absence of bad luck. Imagine two highly talented footballers. Both have exactly the same talents, and also exactly the same motivation, work ethic, flair, competitive instinct etc. A scout comes to see them from a big club. One of them gets injured in the first five minutes of the game through a reckless challenge from an opponent. The other player is man of the match and gets signed up to play professionally.

Now maybe you will say, "Well if that first player is good enough, and wants it enough... he would eventually succeed. If he doesn't get signed up later on by a big club he can't blame it on the injury, he has only himself to blame." Well first of all... remember that both these guys had EXACTLY the same characteristics in EVERY manner. So if the guy who succeeded had been the one who got injured then HE would not have ended up later succeeding either. And second, what happens if the guy who gets injured is unlucky enough to have a career destroying injury? Or maybe he is just unlucky enough to be injured the next two times scouts come to visit.

I agree that we should not become obsessed with luck or with what 'could have been'. That way madness lies. But we need to recognise that there is a lot more luck in life than it appears at first glance. If only so that we are all able to realise just how LUCKY WE ARE.

[Honeybadger]

At Doobs...

I did say that my opinion was contentious. And many people will not agree with it.

It is partly just a question of sanity. We are all human, and we we all have limits. I can probably endure much longer losing runs at poker than the vast majority of players. But even I will crack eventually. And apart from anything else, I need to pay the bills every month. So I must do what I can to ensure that, for example, I am EXTREMELY unlikely ever to have a 6 month losing period. It would be very unlikely anyway tbh... but there is always a chance, even if I was a great player rather than just a mediocre one. I feel the need to give up a TINY amount of EV in some spots in order to make the worst case scenario even more unlikely to occur.

Remember, I am talking about occasionally turning down some very marginal spots... I am not recommending anyone turns down thick edges.

There is actually a mathematical justification for this (that sometimes it is the most +EV thing to do to turn down a small +EV spot). But I have to go now. I will, hopefully, write about it later.

Edited to say: Actually, when you say this:

If you are playing live cash with higher blinds than you would in your normal online game or in a big tournament it can make much more sense.

A few years ago, I bust out of the EPT grand final and the WSOP main event very close to the money taking lines that I would not take now.  At the time I was thinking poker is just one big long game, got to attack the bubble, but now I realise I am never going to get above double figures lifetime in $10k + tournaments and I may not even get to double figures.  In the circumstances these $20k hits are always going to be significant in my lifetime poker earnings.

It is clear that you pretty much agree with me anyway. Because this is exactly the sort of thing that I mean.

BTW almost everyone (myself included) plays with much higher blinds in live games than they do in their regular online games.

[Eck]

Has anyone offered Stu a column yet?

This stuff is excellent; seems to me he puts more effort into this thread than some people I know do at their work on a daily basis.

[EvilPie]

Has anyone offered Stu a column yet?

This stuff is excellent; seems to me he puts more effort into this thread than some people I know do at their work on a daily basis.

Was thinking the same whilst sat at my desk reading his posts.