Measuring RunBad

[atdc21]

Lol George.   And if the cheque bounces u can change their status to ' your'e just sh*t'

[action man]

had this last year and had it for huge periods BUT. it got to the stage where i started unconsciously playing terrible poker just because i could blame stuff on run bad, i got lazy and lost heaps. Now im playing so much better and building stacks where i can sustain a few lost flips in most tourneys. If youre playing well and play enough tourneys no amount of bad beats can hold you back for long.

[rfgqqabc]

had this last year and had it for huge periods BUT. it got to the stage where i started unconsciously playing terrible poker just because i could blame stuff on run bad, i got lazy and lost heaps. Now im playing so much better and building stacks where i can sustain a few lost flips in most tourneys. If youre playing well and play enough tourneys no amount of bad beats can hold you back for long.

define long?

[action man]

1000 mtts

[Whollyflush]

1000 mtts

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/#more-134

more relevant as ever when ROI's are generally dropping,  playing mtt's for a living seems unpleasant to me.

[lucky_scrote]

If you are a recreational player or a pro with a low ROI% then variance is going to be mega high. I guess being a semi-decent MTT player will be frustrating because as that chart shows that wholly posted up, you will lose 45% of the time over 1k tourneys as a 20% roi player. The solution is to get better at poker and have a better ROI. It's very possible to still get a 60-100% ROI at $50ABI but that seems to be reserved for the elites.

If you play 180's for a living then GL. The very best 180 players probably have a 20% ROI if they include all stakes and as the stats show, this means that you will naturally have to endure a lot of variance indeed (ask Ray).

The best treatment for getting over run bad is taking time off in my experience. Unfortunately I need to grind quite hard atm as I need the money so I have to play through it. It's ultimately difficult to play when everything is going against you but most of the time these days when I wake up in the morning I don't feel the affects of my results from the past couple of days/weeks.

[RED-DOG]

1000 mtts

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/#more-134

more relevant as ever when ROI's are generally dropping,  playing mtt's for a living seems unpleasant to me.

How many runners before it becomes a 'Large field' MTT?

[Rupert]

when ur on a bad run, don't look for a measure of how unlucky u are, just get better at poker

[SuuPRlim]

1000 mtts

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/#more-134

more relevant as ever when ROI's are generally dropping,  playing mtt's for a living seems unpleasant to me.

How many runners before it becomes a 'Large field' MTT?

for the purposes of Noahs investigation he used the measure of 181+ (bascically meant it cant be a sit'n'go)

[RED-DOG]

1000 mtts

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/#more-134

more relevant as ever when ROI's are generally dropping,  playing mtt's for a living seems unpleasant to me.

How many runners before it becomes a 'Large field' MTT?

for the purposes of Noahs investigation he used the measure of 181+ (bascically meant it cant be a sit'n'go)

So according to his theory, I wonder what the optimum number of runners is.

[SuuPRlim]

the problem with thinking about "measuring" run bad is that is completely ruins your objectivity, for over 12 months now I've had all-in EV turned off my poker tracker, and it's made me so much happier.

Yes, in theory a way to "measure" run-bad would actually have some use analytically (mostly in selecting games I'd imagine) but what happens with any stat centered around run-good/run-bad is that it is used in that manner by 0.00000000000001% of poker players and by the rest as a search for justification for losses, or simply as a fact to back up a moan of some description. No (or at least hardly any) humans are emotionally capable of actually having this information (myself included) so honestly the further you can put this thread from your mind the better.

Taking it completely away from a strategy angle - is/is not useful information from an analysis point of view - it's actually really, really bad for morale, thinking about this information, and even moreso actually having it can bring no positives. If you're actually very unlucky you'll feel bad about how unlucky you are, if it turns out you're incredibly lucky then you'll just either slightly worse than you currently do or be totally unaffected.

Enjoy your poker, think about it as clearly and as cleanly as you can and allow the hands of fortune to put whatever turn and river cards they want down.

[SuuPRlim]

1000 mtts

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/#more-134

more relevant as ever when ROI's are generally dropping,  playing mtt's for a living seems unpleasant to me.

How many runners before it becomes a 'Large field' MTT?

for the purposes of Noahs investigation he used the measure of 181+ (bascically meant it cant be a sit'n'go)

So according to his theory, I wonder what the optimum number of runners is.

Noah's research is not a theory, it's mathematical evidence - the only way it can be disputed is for someone to go over all the mathematical calcs again and see if he's gotten it wrong (I can't imagine anyone really wanting to do that)

he did right a follow up blog to that one here http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/02/mtt_pros_2/ where he showed variations on his findings for just "large field" (181+) and small field (just 180mans I think) and also showed the difference is extreme buyin variations, not surprisingly it shows that smaller field tournaments are LESS variance than large field tournaments, but the conclusion is certaiinly NOT that one is better/worse/more optimal than the other, like i say it's not a theory or a strategy article, it's purely a presentaion of mathematical data.

How many runners a scheduled MTT gets is totally uncontrolable (aside from a min/max entrants clause by the provider) and whether you're more optimal in 6max/9max/18man/45man/90man/180man SnG's will be entirely down to you personally (a number of factors, like bankroll, style etc)

so in short there is no optimal number of runners for an MTT (for the players at least!)

[RED-DOG]

Yes.

Theory was a bad choice of word.

[SuuPRlim]

lol sorry i've re-read my post it sounds a little patronising (forgive me I'm very hungover today)

[mondatoo]

the problem with thinking about "measuring" run bad is that is completely ruins your objectivity, for over 12 months now I've had all-in EV turned off my poker tracker, and it's made me so much happier.

Yes, in theory a way to "measure" run-bad would actually have some use analytically (mostly in selecting games I'd imagine) but what happens with any stat centered around run-good/run-bad is that it is used in that manner by 0.00000000000001% of poker players and by the rest as a search for justification for losses, or simply as a fact to back up a moan of some description. No (or at least hardly any) humans are emotionally capable of actually having this information (myself included) so honestly the further you can put this thread from your mind the better.

Taking it completely away from a strategy angle - is/is not useful information from an analysis point of view - it's actually really, really bad for morale, thinking about this information, and even moreso actually having it can bring no positives. If you're actually very unlucky you'll feel bad about how unlucky you are, if it turns out you're incredibly lucky then you'll just either slightly worse than you currently do or be totally unaffected.

Enjoy your poker, think about it as clearly and as cleanly as you can and allow the hands of fortune to put whatever turn and river cards they want down.

That's not really true though.

Yes, it's pretty easy to look at a single session, it says you ran -57396308 below ev, but really that's pretty meaningless as it's so easily distorted. But, if you have a huge sample over say a year and are losing, then you look at bb/100 vs evbb/100 with antes and it says you aren't running bad then you almost certainly have leaks, that's a helpful 1st step to plugging said leaks. I do agree though that close to a 100% of people that use these stats do it far too frequently and use meaningless numbers as an easy excuse.

Not letting it effect you and managing to play at least close to your A game when your running horrendous is what separates you from the rest and is how you crush.

It's pretty obvious that if your moaning about running bad, think it's 100% down to that and aren't putting any effort into improving then that's a huge mental leak as well as just lacking in any effort to achieve anything in the game.

The fact is, if you play online for a living, and you survive long enough, than at some stage it's very likely you are going to be in the tiny percentile who have a stage of running absolutely horrendous, suck it up and play good and it'll be over a lot quicker than if you let it fuck with your head.