Further on the subject of variance and volatility, how's this?
In my last 8 sessions, totalling 557 hands, I've dropped 784 Big Blind equivalents, with an aggregated "win" rate of -35%. 355 of these were on just 5 hands. I've reviewed these, and am content I played each of these whilst having a hefty mathematical advantage, and just saw my chips depart as a result of a 2 or 3 out of 47/46 cards left showing up on the turn or the river. So each of these were a loss to an 8-1ish draw or longer. Overall, the 784 BBs represent 42% of my total losses to date although the 557 hands played only represent a little under 9%. Bad streak/variance or bad play?
Probably a combination of both, although I'd contest that at least half of it was variance - I routinely review all hands where I lose more than 25 BBs, and most of these show I've played made hands that on balance of probabiliy have an advantage at the point I commit. Not always, sometimes I catch a cold as a result of someone slow playing a better starting hand, and taking it as a result of having better cards in the hole. I accept that this happens.
So where do I go now? I reckon that on my figures I need to play at an 18% advantage (as a opposed to the recent 8 sessions where I've played at a 35% disadvantage) just to overcome the rake and breakeven. I haven't calculated what average advantage I would need to play at, and over how many hands, in order to get back the recent loss of 784 BBs, but I suspect it'll be something silly, and in view of the variance in the game, quite unachieveable. In this case I have to conclude that theses losses are irrecoverable, if I continue playing at the same level.
So, looking at the numbers, I think the moral of the story to anyone is don't even think about chasing losses - or of playing more or at higher levels (as this can be the thin end of the wedge) and forget about all of the rhetoric about variance evening itself out over time. The variance in poker is, in the main, unmeasurable, and so there's no way of ever proving, using maths, how long this may take. I think what you can be sure of is that you'll never play enough hands where you'll see it start to even out.
There are some things you can do to reduce variance. Put a cap on the maximum amount you're prepared to call with where there's any possibility that your hand can be out-drawn or beaten - as a means of avoiding large losses. Trouble, with this is you may regularly be throwing away a winning hand - are you really going to fold the top set full house on the grounds there's a possibility someone is holding the other two undercards and has hit a quad? What about a King or Queen high flush? You could also play higher levels with better players, who won't chase the 14-1 draws on the river? The mathematical odds variance may decrease, but with better players it's likely you'll have to deal with a lot more of the mind-games nonesense that is a big part of the game. Neither of these are really good ideas - and you'd probably be cutting your nose off to spite your face by adopting them.
Alternatively, despite the fact that the game requires a fair amount of decision making, based on many considerations - so a degree of skill is requried - accept that when you sit down to play poker you're gambling, and as such there's a chance you'll lose. End of. I'm sure there are a small minority of very good players who have managed to "beat the game" (ie are in the black and consistently turn a profit), but as long as they don't have control over all of the elements of the game, the biggest being others' behaviour of course, they're still gambling too, although perhaps with a reduced prospect of losing.
Just a final thought on the issue of variance. It's often said that it runs both ways. I'm not always sure it does though? As I've already commented on, a hefty chunk of my losses tend to be to people who play through long-odds draws and hit their cards. In theory it should run both ways? But as I don't tend to play 8-1+ draws unless the pot-odds make it favourable to do so (which is rare), there are few opportunities for the variance on these hands to run in my favour. For those people born lucky (not sure I'm one of them), loosening up, chasing and and gambling more can pay dividends - as it did for me fairly recently when I came second in a 500 entrant freeroll and picked up £15. I would say by the time it got to the final table skill wasn't a factor at all, and it was purely down to the size of players' stacks and who got the cards. For once I was lucky.
you might not play on 8-1 draws etcetc. but when you get it in as a 90% favorite and win you are running above expectation Posted by LOL_RAISE
Yep . . . if an opponent needs to hit cards with only a 10% probability of doing so (1 in 10, 9-1 draw; needs one of four possibles on the river?) you have the advantage, but it ain't no guarantee. Play against opponents who understand odds and the liklihood is a raise will mean the pot's yours. Play against a table full of people who don't and chase like demented greyhounds and there's a distinct possibility that anyone in that position will play through - that's what contributes to the variance spectre. In theory, the maths say you should only expect to lose one time in every ten that that happens, but what happens in practice can be very different.
Some more personal experience - my last session at the cash tables I played 96 hands, with total bet being £19.19 (I play the lowest tables as I've never managed to get to the point where I can justify moving up). Out of the final 10 hands, I lost 7 with total losses on these being £8.30. That's -43% in just roughly 7% of the hands played. Five of these seven hands I played through with a huge advantage at the point of commitment.
I've had a similar experience on the other site I play at where 4 hands have eaten roughly a third of my account balance. One recent hand that comes to mind is the one where a chump called into the pot with a single blind with 74o and hit 6,5,2 on the flop. I raised 17 BBs with pocket Jacks, he called and didn't hit anything on the turn. I raised 17 BBs again and he still called - so he's on a 8/46, or 6-1, draw. Needless to say, the river card was one of those eight cards; a three. So I ended up another 35 BBs down. In theory, if I were one of the winning players who purport to make an average profit of 3BBs per 100 hands, then I'd have to play over another 1,000 hands just to make this back (playing with a consistent advantage of c20%+).
If I'd been betting pounds rather than pennies/cents, I'd now be seeking counselling.
I think someone above has written that he thinks the variance in the game can be beaten. My response would be to suggest that he takes a course in statistics.
Comments
Further on the subject of variance and volatility, how's this?
In my last 8 sessions, totalling 557 hands, I've dropped 784 Big Blind equivalents, with an aggregated "win" rate of -35%. 355 of these were on just 5 hands. I've reviewed these, and am content I played each of these whilst having a hefty mathematical advantage, and just saw my chips depart as a result of a 2 or 3 out of 47/46 cards left showing up on the turn or the river. So each of these were a loss to an 8-1ish draw or longer. Overall, the 784 BBs represent 42% of my total losses to date although the 557 hands played only represent a little under 9%. Bad streak/variance or bad play?
Probably a combination of both, although I'd contest that at least half of it was variance - I routinely review all hands where I lose more than 25 BBs, and most of these show I've played made hands that on balance of probabiliy have an advantage at the point I commit. Not always, sometimes I catch a cold as a result of someone slow playing a better starting hand, and taking it as a result of having better cards in the hole. I accept that this happens.
So where do I go now? I reckon that on my figures I need to play at an 18% advantage (as a opposed to the recent 8 sessions where I've played at a 35% disadvantage) just to overcome the rake and breakeven. I haven't calculated what average advantage I would need to play at, and over how many hands, in order to get back the recent loss of 784 BBs, but I suspect it'll be something silly, and in view of the variance in the game, quite unachieveable. In this case I have to conclude that theses losses are irrecoverable, if I continue playing at the same level.
So, looking at the numbers, I think the moral of the story to anyone is don't even think about chasing losses - or of playing more or at higher levels (as this can be the thin end of the wedge) and forget about all of the rhetoric about variance evening itself out over time. The variance in poker is, in the main, unmeasurable, and so there's no way of ever proving, using maths, how long this may take. I think what you can be sure of is that you'll never play enough hands where you'll see it start to even out.
There are some things you can do to reduce variance. Put a cap on the maximum amount you're prepared to call with where there's any possibility that your hand can be out-drawn or beaten - as a means of avoiding large losses. Trouble, with this is you may regularly be throwing away a winning hand - are you really going to fold the top set full house on the grounds there's a possibility someone is holding the other two undercards and has hit a quad? What about a King or Queen high flush? You could also play higher levels with better players, who won't chase the 14-1 draws on the river? The mathematical odds variance may decrease, but with better players it's likely you'll have to deal with a lot more of the mind-games nonesense that is a big part of the game. Neither of these are really good ideas - and you'd probably be cutting your nose off to spite your face by adopting them.
Alternatively, despite the fact that the game requires a fair amount of decision making, based on many considerations - so a degree of skill is requried - accept that when you sit down to play poker you're gambling, and as such there's a chance you'll lose. End of. I'm sure there are a small minority of very good players who have managed to "beat the game" (ie are in the black and consistently turn a profit), but as long as they don't have control over all of the elements of the game, the biggest being others' behaviour of course, they're still gambling too, although perhaps with a reduced prospect of losing.
Just a final thought on the issue of variance. It's often said that it runs both ways. I'm not always sure it does though? As I've already commented on, a hefty chunk of my losses tend to be to people who play through long-odds draws and hit their cards. In theory it should run both ways? But as I don't tend to play 8-1+ draws unless the pot-odds make it favourable to do so (which is rare), there are few opportunities for the variance on these hands to run in my favour. For those people born lucky (not sure I'm one of them), loosening up, chasing and and gambling more can pay dividends - as it did for me fairly recently when I came second in a 500 entrant freeroll and picked up £15. I would say by the time it got to the final table skill wasn't a factor at all, and it was purely down to the size of players' stacks and who got the cards. For once I was lucky.
Good cards.
Some more personal experience - my last session at the cash tables I played 96 hands, with total bet being £19.19 (I play the lowest tables as I've never managed to get to the point where I can justify moving up). Out of the final 10 hands, I lost 7 with total losses on these being £8.30. That's -43% in just roughly 7% of the hands played. Five of these seven hands I played through with a huge advantage at the point of commitment.
I've had a similar experience on the other site I play at where 4 hands have eaten roughly a third of my account balance. One recent hand that comes to mind is the one where a chump called into the pot with a single blind with 74o and hit 6,5,2 on the flop. I raised 17 BBs with pocket Jacks, he called and didn't hit anything on the turn. I raised 17 BBs again and he still called - so he's on a 8/46, or 6-1, draw. Needless to say, the river card was one of those eight cards; a three. So I ended up another 35 BBs down. In theory, if I were one of the winning players who purport to make an average profit of 3BBs per 100 hands, then I'd have to play over another 1,000 hands just to make this back (playing with a consistent advantage of c20%+).
If I'd been betting pounds rather than pennies/cents, I'd now be seeking counselling.
I think someone above has written that he thinks the variance in the game can be beaten. My response would be to suggest that he takes a course in statistics.
Good cards.