In Response to Re: Itsover4u Itsover4me Diary : Unfortunately I am too loyal.... good result for stoke the weekend they have a very good team at them min. You are a top class striker away from having a europe challenging team in my oppinion. I am a big fan of shaqiri and Aranutovic Posted by Itsover4u
lol that bluff ain't gonna get through!
Was good to see Micah and Lescott back at Eastlands on Saturday. Even Sinclair got mild applause when he came on. Mass exodus in the summer if the worst case scenario happens?
The team needs gutting top to bottom.... This villa team is like shoddy brickwork....
Initially they looked good from the outside, but it didnt take long for the cracks to grow and eventually crumble.
It has been coming for years gross mis management and neglect at the top end of the club. The players have no fight and if they were im my Sunday league team and showed the effort they do I would be embarresed to call them my team mates.
If we can somehow keep Grealish, Ayew and Amavi and sell the rest I would be delighted
The team needs gutting top to bottom.... This villa team is like shoddy brickwork.... Initially they looked good from the outside, but it didnt take long for the cracks to grow and eventually crumble. It has been coming for years gross mis management and neglect at the top end of the club. The players have no fight and if they were im my Sunday league team and showed the effort they do I would be embarresed to call them my team mates. If we can somehow keep Grealish, Ayew and Amavi and sell the rest I would be delighted Posted by Itsover4u
+1 to this
Gotta get rid of Andy Pandy Lerner and his cronies first.
You started a thread last night, & then, after good advice from Matt Bates, requested it be deleted. I have therefore deleted the discussion.
I have C & P the content & sent it to the Office.
If you wish to identify the players, you can EITHER advise CC, or, alternatively, send me the details via a PM, & I will ensure it is immediately forwarded to the right people in the office.
Morning. You started a thread last night, & then, after good advice from Matt Bates, requested it be deleted. I have therefore deleted the discussion. I have C & P the content & sent it to the Office. If you wish to identify the players, you can EITHER advise CC, or, alternatively, send me the details via a PM, & I will ensure it is immediately forwarded to the right people in the office. Thanks. Posted by Tikay10
Been a while since we updated but things have been ticking along nicely at sngs and I inted to keep them as my main focus for a while.
Played a few small tourneys but really need to work on my patience.... im making a few to many hero calls when deep and need to sort that out before UKOPS
But BR going in the right direction. Many will be dissapointed to know there have been no major blow ups or swings lately but I am comfortable with that after the ups and downs of chasing a UKPC seat
The dreaded downswing, if we are winning players it makes us question if everything we know to be correct is actually a lie. It makes the strongest of mindsets crumble.... it makes us question if we should change our game?
The answer of course is no... of sorts.
My cash adventures of late have been a bit of a disaster and it made me lose a ton of motivation just after the UKOPS started (I ended up playing like 3 events) & as much as I like to tell myself I am destined to be playing high stakes the truth is that people very rarely get to the top by luck or by talent alone.... it is hard work and a mindset that will make you make the right decisions consistently.
By the "right decisions" I dont mean raising x range when heads up but actively studying and improving your game. A lot of people dont like asking themselves tough questions about what they are doing wrong and when they do they will often give themselves fabricated answers.... how is it to pass off a bad session as "Bad luck"?
Today is the start... today is the moment of realisation that I have to put in the relevant amount of effort to fufill the goals I have set out for myself.
I will keep progress reguarly but a basic outline of what I am trying to achieve is simple.
Treble my volume and get to £100 - £200 HUSGS within 6 months.
My commandment
- thou shall not explode and play £1000NL
- Thou shalt not tilt and play Omaha cash because yee suck at it
- Thou shalt put in the required amount to improve and implement your learnings
This is really a long term goal of mine too, I was going nicely in the hypers then had a £1300 downswing the last 2 months, lost 14 out of 15 at 52.50 last saturday (I still think I had an edge on that player and was running insanely bad) but am now at a loss over 2k games so maybe I'm just bad at them and need to learn.
Would you want to play a bunch sometime? maybe £5s or so as I want to reduce my swings for a while!
"The dreaded downswing, if we are winning players it makes us question if everything we know to be correct is actually a lie. It makes the strongest of mindsets crumble.... it makes us question if we should change our game?
The answer of course is no... of sorts.
A lot of people dont like asking themselves tough questions about what they are doing wrong and when they do they will often give themselves fabricated answers.... how is it to pass off a bad session as "Bad luck"?"
Great comments Danny, ditto the post by Lady Chiggy, Sheriffess of Somerset.
Downswings, when we can't seem to win at the rate we think we should, really do mess with our heads. But it's SO easy to take the "it's just variance" line, & say everything will soon sort it out. It's not always the case.
For balance, variance is an immensely powerful thing, a thing of beauty in so many ways.
I'm having my own questions to answer right now, my biggest downswing in 2.5 years, & the question I keep asking - is this just luck, or have I slipped behind the curve? My mind tries to convince me it is sheer run-bad, but that's such a lazy way of looking at it.
Anyway Danny & Lady C, I hope you both turn it round pronto.
I'm having my own questions to answer right now, my biggest downswing in 2.5 years, & the question I keep asking - is this just luck, or have I slipped behind the curve? Posted by Tikay10
In Response to Re: Itsover4u Itsover4me Diary : It's Markycash Posted by chiggypig
Ha, he's certainly not helping.
But that's an easy one to explain - he is a far better player than me, as simple as that.
In fact, he's the best I've seen in the PLO8 DYM format. Think he won around 20 from 26 last night, & in addition, came 2nd in the £100 Guaranteed PLO8.
The night before he won 19 out of 24. He might be on a heater, but he's clearly immensely gifted at PLO8 & DYM's. It's a pleasure to watch him play, it really is.
/> get to £100 - £200 HUSGS This is really a long term goal of mine too, I was going nicely in the hypers then had a £1300 downswing the last 2 months, lost 14 out of 15 at 52.50 last saturday (I still think I had an edge on that player and was running insanely bad) but am now at a loss over 2k games so maybe I'm just bad at them and need to learn. Would you want to play a bunch sometime? maybe £5s or so as I want to reduce my swings for a while! Posted by chiggypig
Hey Chippy. Yes would be happy to play a bunch at those stakes 2-4 tabling. Would be interesting to pick a few spots after and discuss them if interested?
Yes variance can be brutal Tikay so rather than sulk I am going to look at it from a more objective view.
My main issue is I know as fact MTTs to be my most profitable format but simply do not have the time to play as many as I would like. Working 10 hour days and getting up at 6AM is kinda tough to fit around any schedule.
Im sure your downswing is purely variance... you have been winning over many years and the games curve does not change overnight
In Response to Re: Itsover4u Itsover4me Diary : Hey Chippy. Yes would be happy to play a bunch at those stakes 2-4 tabling. Would be interesting to pick a few spots after and discuss them if interested? Posted by Itsover4u
Sounds great, I'm very tired today and will be avoiding heads up for the night, is tomorrow evening good for you? Or some time on the weekend?
In Response to Re: Itsover4u Itsover4me Diary : Hey Chippy. Yes would be happy to play a bunch at those stakes 2-4 tabling. Would be interesting to pick a few spots after and discuss them if interested? Posted by Itsover4u
Sounds great, I'm very tired tonight and will be avoiding heads up for the night, is tomorrow evening good for you? Or some time on the weekend?
there is a very good variance simulator called swongsim that can be used to model the variance in HUSNG's
if we use chiggy as an example:
on sky for a 2% ROI you need a 53.5% ITM
if we took 8000 players with an expected ITM of 53.5% and had them play 2k games on sky here's what the results would look like:
text:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 53.5% 53.506719% ITM 53.5% 53.506719% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8000 simulations of 2000 games Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): 1.9% (38 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 6.76% (135 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 6.00% (120 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 5.33% (107 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 4.66% (93 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 3.71% (74 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 3.04% (61 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 2.47% (49 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 1.90% (38 Buyins) 40% had ROI below 1.33% (27 Buyins) 30% had ROI below 0.85% (17 Buyins) 20% had ROI below 0.19% (4 Buyins) 10% had ROI below -0.77% (-15 Buyins) 5% had ROI below -1.53% (-31 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below -2.29% (-46 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -3.24% (-65 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 17 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 19 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 21 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 23 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 27 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 30 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 33 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 36 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 40 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 44 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 51 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 61 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 71 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 80 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 92 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -1 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -2 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -4 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -7 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -10 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -14 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -18 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -23 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -31 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -43 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -55 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -65 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -81 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 233 games 97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 284 games 95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 326 games 90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 394 games 80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 498 games 70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 603 games 60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 709 games 50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 818 games 40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 952 games 30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1118 games 20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1355 games 10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1681 games 5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1880 games 2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1958 games 1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1993 games ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so 20% of the time a player with a true winrate of 53.5% would breakeven or worse over a 2k sample on sky.
-----------
with regard to cracking the £100+ level do the regs up there protect their lobbies? if so establihing at the hypers will be like playing a high-stakes game of chicken with your bankrolls.
there is a very good variance simulator called swongsim that can be used to model the variance in HUSNG's if we use chiggy as an example: on sky for a 2% ROI you need a 53.5% ITM if we took 8000 players with an expected ITM of 53.5% and had them play 2k games on sky here's what the results would look like: text: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 53.5% 53.506719% ITM 53.5% 53.506719% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8000 simulations of 2000 games Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): 1.9% (38 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 6.76% (135 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 6.00% (120 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 5.33% (107 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 4.66% (93 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 3.71% (74 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 3.04% (61 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 2.47% (49 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 1.90% (38 Buyins) 40% had ROI below 1.33% (27 Buyins) 30% had ROI below 0.85% (17 Buyins) 20% had ROI below 0.19% (4 Buyins) 10% had ROI below -0.77% (-15 Buyins) 5% had ROI below -1.53% (-31 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below -2.29% (-46 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -3.24% (-65 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 17 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 19 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 21 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 23 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 27 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 30 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 33 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 36 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 40 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 44 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 51 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 61 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 71 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 80 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 92 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -1 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -2 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -4 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -7 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -10 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -14 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -18 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -23 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -31 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -43 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -55 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -65 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -81 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 233 games 97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 284 games 95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 326 games 90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 394 games 80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 498 games 70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 603 games 60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 709 games 50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 818 games 40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 952 games 30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1118 games 20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1355 games 10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1681 games 5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1880 games 2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1958 games 1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1993 games --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and to visualise: http://pasteboard.co/2GpkCiIs.png so 20% of the time a player with a true winrate of 53.5% would breakeven or worse over a 2k sample on sky. ----------- with regard to cracking the £100+ level do the regs up there protect their lobbies? if so establihing at the hypers will be like playing a high-stakes game of chicken with your bankrolls. Posted by TeddyBloat
Cracking post teddy!!
The regs will try to protect there lobby I have battled a few already with positive results. If I battle a reg who I decide i have an edge on I would 100% reg into every game they sat at so no reason they wouldnt do it with me also
Even without edge it might be in a regs interest spend some £££ to putting up-moving players bankrolls to the test. The husng lobbies tend to be competitive with lots of reg v reg games at decent stakes.
Love the attitude in the thread, sure you'll do well up there
Comments
Was good to see Micah and Lescott back at Eastlands on Saturday. Even Sinclair got mild applause when he came on. Mass exodus in the summer if the worst case scenario happens?
Morning.
You started a thread last night, & then, after good advice from Matt Bates, requested it be deleted. I have therefore deleted the discussion.
I have C & P the content & sent it to the Office.
If you wish to identify the players, you can EITHER advise CC, or, alternatively, send me the details via a PM, & I will ensure it is immediately forwarded to the right people in the office.
Thanks.
^^^^
Received & replied.
Thank you.
"The dreaded downswing, if we are winning players it makes us question if everything we know to be correct is actually a lie. It makes the strongest of mindsets crumble.... it makes us question if we should change our game?
A lot of people dont like asking themselves tough questions about what they are doing wrong and when they do they will often give themselves fabricated answers.... how is it to pass off a bad session as "Bad luck"?"
Great comments Danny, ditto the post by Lady Chiggy, Sheriffess of Somerset.
Downswings, when we can't seem to win at the rate we think we should, really do mess with our heads. But it's SO easy to take the "it's just variance" line, & say everything will soon sort it out. It's not always the case.
For balance, variance is an immensely powerful thing, a thing of beauty in so many ways.
I'm having my own questions to answer right now, my biggest downswing in 2.5 years, & the question I keep asking - is this just luck, or have I slipped behind the curve? My mind tries to convince me it is sheer run-bad, but that's such a lazy way of looking at it.
Anyway Danny & Lady C, I hope you both turn it round pronto.
But that's an easy one to explain - he is a far better player than me, as simple as that.
In fact, he's the best I've seen in the PLO8 DYM format. Think he won around 20 from 26 last night, & in addition, came 2nd in the £100 Guaranteed PLO8.
The night before he won 19 out of 24. He might be on a heater, but he's clearly immensely gifted at PLO8 & DYM's. It's a pleasure to watch him play, it really is.
if we use chiggy as an example:
on sky for a 2% ROI you need a 53.5% ITM
if we took 8000 players with an expected ITM of 53.5% and had them play 2k games on sky here's what the results would look like:
text:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Specified Simulation
Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution
1 53.5% 53.506719%
ITM 53.5% 53.506719%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8000 simulations of 2000 games
Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): 1.9% (38 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had ROI below 6.76% (135 Buyins)
97.5% had ROI below 6.00% (120 Buyins)
95% had ROI below 5.33% (107 Buyins)
90% had ROI below 4.66% (93 Buyins)
80% had ROI below 3.71% (74 Buyins)
70% had ROI below 3.04% (61 Buyins)
60% had ROI below 2.47% (49 Buyins)
50% had ROI below 1.90% (38 Buyins)
40% had ROI below 1.33% (27 Buyins)
30% had ROI below 0.85% (17 Buyins)
20% had ROI below 0.19% (4 Buyins)
10% had ROI below -0.77% (-15 Buyins)
5% had ROI below -1.53% (-31 Buyins)
2.5% had ROI below -2.29% (-46 Buyins)
1% had ROI below -3.24% (-65 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a downswing greater than 17 buyins
97.5% had a downswing greater than 19 buyins
95% had a downswing greater than 21 buyins
90% had a downswing greater than 23 buyins
80% had a downswing greater than 27 buyins
70% had a downswing greater than 30 buyins
60% had a downswing greater than 33 buyins
50% had a downswing greater than 36 buyins
40% had a downswing greater than 40 buyins
30% had a downswing greater than 44 buyins
20% had a downswing greater than 51 buyins
10% had a downswing greater than 61 buyins
5% had a downswing greater than 71 buyins
2.5% had a downswing greater than 80 buyins
1% had a downswing greater than 92 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins
97.5% had a low point lower than 0 buyins
95% had a low point lower than -1 buyins
90% had a low point lower than -2 buyins
80% had a low point lower than -4 buyins
70% had a low point lower than -7 buyins
60% had a low point lower than -10 buyins
50% had a low point lower than -14 buyins
40% had a low point lower than -18 buyins
30% had a low point lower than -23 buyins
20% had a low point lower than -31 buyins
10% had a low point lower than -43 buyins
5% had a low point lower than -55 buyins
2.5% had a low point lower than -65 buyins
1% had a low point lower than -81 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 233 games
97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 284 games
95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 326 games
90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 394 games
80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 498 games
70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 603 games
60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 709 games
50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 818 games
40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 952 games
30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1118 games
20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1355 games
10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1681 games
5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1880 games
2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1958 games
1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1993 games
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and to visualise:
http://pasteboard.co/2GpkCiIs.png
so 20% of the time a player with a true winrate of 53.5% would breakeven or worse over a 2k sample on sky.
-----------
with regard to cracking the £100+ level do the regs up there protect their lobbies? if so establihing at the hypers will be like playing a high-stakes game of chicken with your bankrolls.
Even without edge it might be in a regs interest spend some £££ to putting up-moving players bankrolls to the test. The husng lobbies tend to be competitive with lots of reg v reg games at decent stakes.
Love the attitude in the thread, sure you'll do well up there