Longest Downswing or Breakeven stretch @ 6-max cash ???

ALAN_18 · May 2019

As the title says what is your longest downswing/breakeven stretch and at what stakes ? Just trying to get my head around variance a little better and I think this thread might open my eyes some so get posting

Duesenberg · May 2019

My biggest downswing was 30 buy-ins playing a mixture of 20nl and 30nl on 888 over around 20k hands. On Sky it's somewhere in the region of 15-20 buy-ins, but it's harder to keep track without downloadable hand histories.

If you're unfamiliar with it, have a look at the Primedope variance calculator to get an idea of what sort of extremes one might be able to expect at any given win rate.

https://primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

ALAN_18 · May 2019

Duesenberg said:
My biggest downswing was 30 buy-ins playing a mixture of 20nl and 30nl on 888 over around 20k hands. On Sky it's somewhere in the region of 15-20 buy-ins, but it's harder to keep track without downloadable hand histories.

If you're unfamiliar with it, have a look at the Primedope variance calculator to get an idea of what sort of extremes one might be able to expect at any given win rate.

https://primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

Cheers Mate, I am just finding it hard to get my head round at the moment especially when I am not a proven winner at 10NL just yet.

I mean I played a 4 hour session today and dropped 8 buy-ins and when this happens it makes me question whether it is myself getting a bad run of cards or the fact that I am not actually good enough to beat the stake.

This really messes with my head especially when I have been game selecting a bit better than I used too. I usually sit with 3 recs and 2 regs who are roughly as good as me.

Thanks for the link mate

ALAN_18 · May 2019

Occurrence rates for downswing extents and downswing stretches for a player with a 2.50 BB/100 winrate and a 100.00 BB/100 standard deviation

ALAN_18 · May 2019

If I am reading the above graph correctly 50% of players winning at 2.5BB/100 (don't know if this is big blinds or big bets) will be down swinging for 75k hands ?

ALAN_18 · May 2019

ALAN_18 · May 2019

And 50% of players winning at 2.5bb/100 will have a 30 buy-in downswing.

Ouchhhhh

ALAN_18 · May 2019

So me dropping 8 buy ins today would happen to 80% of winning players beating the stake for 2.5bb/100.

A_r_K · May 2019

ALAN_18 said:

Duesenberg said:
My biggest downswing was 30 buy-ins playing a mixture of 20nl and 30nl on 888 over around 20k hands. On Sky it's somewhere in the region of 15-20 buy-ins, but it's harder to keep track without downloadable hand histories.

If you're unfamiliar with it, have a look at the Primedope variance calculator to get an idea of what sort of extremes one might be able to expect at any given win rate.

https://primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/
Cheers Mate, I am just finding it hard to get my head round at the moment especially when I am not a proven winner at 10NL just yet.

I mean I played a 4 hour session today and dropped 8 buy-ins and when this happens it makes me question whether it is myself getting a bad run of cards or the fact that I am not actually good enough to beat the stake.

This really messes with my head especially when I have been game selecting a bit better than I used too. I usually sit with 3 recs and 2 regs who are roughly as good as me.

Thanks for the link mate

i remember a -10 buyin sesh at 10nl few years back that nearly busted me. Feels horrible when happens but very standard unfortunately

ALAN_18 · May 2019

A_r_K said:

ALAN_18 said:

Duesenberg said:
My biggest downswing was 30 buy-ins playing a mixture of 20nl and 30nl on 888 over around 20k hands. On Sky it's somewhere in the region of 15-20 buy-ins, but it's harder to keep track without downloadable hand histories.

If you're unfamiliar with it, have a look at the Primedope variance calculator to get an idea of what sort of extremes one might be able to expect at any given win rate.

https://primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/
Cheers Mate, I am just finding it hard to get my head round at the moment especially when I am not a proven winner at 10NL just yet.

I mean I played a 4 hour session today and dropped 8 buy-ins and when this happens it makes me question whether it is myself getting a bad run of cards or the fact that I am not actually good enough to beat the stake.

This really messes with my head especially when I have been game selecting a bit better than I used too. I usually sit with 3 recs and 2 regs who are roughly as good as me.

Thanks for the link mate
i remember a -10 buyin sesh at 10nl few years back that nearly busted me. Feels horrible when happens but very standard unfortunately

Hi Mate

Thanks for your reply.

How long ago where you playing 10NL ? I am only asking as I see you at the highest stake spin n go's now and wondering how long it took you to progress from the micro stakes to where you are at now ?

Is there any reason that you moved from the standard 6-max cash games to spins ? Better traffic, better hourly ? Also do you not still play the odd 6-max line up ?

BTW I bet the downswings that happen at spins are brutal ? What is your biggest downswing in terms of buy-ins there ?

GL at the tables

PS - Thanks for knocking me out the Vegas Stack Builder on the bubble with quads over my Aces full lol

NH Sir...

EDIT - Just remembered you didn't actually knock me out, just crippled me down to 10bb

BigHawk89 · May 2019

Dropping 8 buy ins can easily be done.
I've dropped 15-20 buy ins in a day a few times before at 20/30nl.

ALAN_18 · May 2019

BigHawk89 said:
Dropping 8 buy ins can easily be done.
I've dropped 15-20 buy ins in a day a few times before at 20/30nl.

Really ? How many tables do you play mate ? I think I am just going to have to get used to the swings getting bigger the higher the stakes.

I managed to breakeven yesterday after dropping 8 buy-ins so that proves the games at 10NL are more swingy than what I am used to at 4NL. So god knows how I am going to cope if I do well enough to move up to 20NL.

Reviewing my play this morning and there where definitely a few spots I could of folded for big pots, so I can not put the full 8 buy-ins down to variance. I see this a lot with bad players putting big downswings down to bad variance and not looking at their own play.

Not saying it was all bad play, I would say 5 or 6 got the money in as a fav or flipping and then the other 2 could be put down as bad calls caused by a little tilt creaping in.

BigHawk89 · May 2019

I play 8-12 tables so it's easily done! When looking at the hand histories you can tend to just look at the big pots. You also have to look at leaks you have in the smaller pots because they soon add up over a long period of time.

Best of luck!

The--Don · May 2019

The best way to lower your variance is to improve your winrate. You can achieve this by playing fewer tables, improving your table selection and taking more time over your decision making.

Playing 6+ tables on a site with a relatively small player pool, no timebanks and below industry standard software is far from ideal.

I often see players that I consider to be very good chatting at the tables about their latest large downswing and wonder how it is possible in such soft games (relatively speaking) but then on other days, I will notice them at 10+ tables battling with mostly the same regs at each one, with too few losing players at them to barely cover the rake long term.

Under those conditions (playing lots of other regs with a similar skill level and not many losing players even covering the rake bill) variance becomes a big problem because nobody has a big enough edge over the field to have a crushing winrate.

This might not be a popular opinion but it's not easy to argue against other than to churn out tired old cliches such as 'work harder' 'get better' etc. which most of your competitors are also doing anyway.

Remainer · May 2019

When I played fulltime on Party a few years back 100nl/200nl I ran at 6bb+ for over 300K hands and so thought I'd got the game sussed only to run breakeven for the next 100K. I've had an 80 BI under EV run too. This game messes with your mind.
Looking at variance simulators does help to get your head around it a bit.
Although I only play for 'fun' nowadays, my approach was similar to The Don's. Game select like crazy and don't battle regs. Always try and maximise your edge at the table. It's hard to do but always try and only play when you are on your 'A' game by understanding the mental side of the game.
Seems to me Alan you are on your way, as you are asking the right questions.

ALAN_18 · May 2019

Remainer said:
When I played fulltime on Party a few years back 100nl/200nl I ran at 6bb+ for over 300K hands and so thought I'd got the game sussed only to run breakeven for the next 100K. I've had an 80 BI under EV run too. This game messes with your mind.
Looking at variance simulators does help to get your head around it a bit.
Although I only play for 'fun' nowadays, my approach was similar to The Don's. Game select like crazy and don't battle regs. Always try and maximise your edge at the table. It's hard to do but always try and only play when you are on your 'A' game by understanding the mental side of the game.
Seems to me Alan you are on your way, as you are asking the right questions.

Hello mate and thanks for your reply

That is at 100/200NL though where your egde is going to be very smaller than at 10NL, I am only just beginning to understand variance but I still could not imagine a 100k hand breakeven stretch at 10NL (however I am breakeven over about the last 20-30 hours)

6bb/100 at 100/200NL is crushing also mate well done, what year was this and what stake do you think is comparable to 100NL on Party back then to these days on Sky ?

GL at the tables...

ALAN_18 · May 2019

The--Don said:
The best way to lower your variance is to improve your winrate. You can achieve this by playing fewer tables, improving your table selection and taking more time over your decision making.

Playing 6+ tables on a site with a relatively small player pool, no timebanks and below industry standard software is far from ideal.

I often see players that I consider to be very good chatting at the tables about their latest large downswing and wonder how it is possible in such soft games (relatively speaking) but then on other days, I will notice them at 10+ tables battling with mostly the same regs at each one, with too few losing players at them to barely cover the rake long term.

Under those conditions (playing lots of other regs with a similar skill level and not many losing players even covering the rake bill) variance becomes a big problem because nobody has a big enough edge over the field to have a crushing winrate.

This might not be a popular opinion but it's not easy to argue against other than to churn out tired old cliches such as 'work harder' 'get better' etc. which most of your competitors are also doing anyway.

Hi Mate

So if you where already playing in 4 good 10NL tables and you usually play 6 tables but the other 2 available had 3 regs and 2 fun players would you not bother joining them ?

I have been joining them but generally trying to avoid getting into big battles with the regs but for some reason regs at 10NL feel the need to take every opportunity to 3bet other regs when that is not where the value is at and I cant understand it myself.

I actually don't really mind as I am challenging myself against half decent players, gaining experience putting myself into tough spots however like you said it is not doing any good for my winrate.

Do you think that 4 regs and 2 fun players is enough for the 4 regs to more than breakeven ? Or as a rule of thumb should I only join if the ratio is 1:1 rec/reg ?

I also know that with the rake being super high at 10NL that extra 2.5% is another 5bb/100 they take off you so you have to be winning at 15bb/100 just to breakeven which is unbelievable. When you get to 20NL do you have to be as picky with table selection ? Is a table with 2 recs and 4 regs OK at 20NL due to the decrease in rake ?

GL at the tables anyway mate (always enjoy your posts btw )

ALAN_18 · May 2019

Reading Jared Tendler's Mental Game of Poker and thought I would post this phrase as I really like the way he takes something negative and posts it in a positive light.

"Every time you go through a period of running bad, it’s an opportunity to prove just how much you have learned. Only when skill consistently shows up under extreme emotional pressure can you prove what has been learned to the level of Unconscious Competence. Everything else is still in the process of being learned"

Quote Jared Tendler

The--Don · May 2019

ALAN_18 said:

The--Don said:
The best way to lower your variance is to improve your winrate. You can achieve this by playing fewer tables, improving your table selection and taking more time over your decision making.

Playing 6+ tables on a site with a relatively small player pool, no timebanks and below industry standard software is far from ideal.

I often see players that I consider to be very good chatting at the tables about their latest large downswing and wonder how it is possible in such soft games (relatively speaking) but then on other days, I will notice them at 10+ tables battling with mostly the same regs at each one, with too few losing players at them to barely cover the rake long term.

Under those conditions (playing lots of other regs with a similar skill level and not many losing players even covering the rake bill) variance becomes a big problem because nobody has a big enough edge over the field to have a crushing winrate.

This might not be a popular opinion but it's not easy to argue against other than to churn out tired old cliches such as 'work harder' 'get better' etc. which most of your competitors are also doing anyway.

Hi Mate

So if you where already playing in 4 good 10NL tables and you usually play 6 tables but the other 2 available had 3 regs and 2 fun players would you not bother joining them ?

I have been joining them but generally trying to avoid getting into big battles with the regs but for some reason regs at 10NL feel the need to take every opportunity to 3bet other regs when that is not where the value is at and I cant understand it myself.

I actually don't really mind as I am challenging myself against half decent players, gaining experience putting myself into tough spots however like you said it is not doing any good for my winrate.

Do you think that 4 regs and 2 fun players is enough for the 4 regs to more than breakeven ? Or as a rule of thumb should I only join if the ratio is 1:1 rec/reg ?

I also know that with the rake being super high at 10NL that extra 2.5% is another 5bb/100 they take off you so you have to be winning at 15bb/100 just to breakeven which is unbelievable. When you get to 20NL do you have to be as picky with table selection ? Is a table with 2 recs and 4 regs OK at 20NL due to the decrease in rake ?

GL at the tables anyway mate (always enjoy your posts btw )

Sorry, I don't know how to tidy quotes up, so this looks kind of messy.

Regarding your question, I only stay at tables with three other regs if the weaker players are super spewy and are creating a really good game.

I am super nitty both at the table and when deciding which tables to play. Probably too nitty a lot of the time but if I let my standards drop a little, they tend to drop even further quite quickly and I find myself almost completely abandoning my principles, which can prove to be more damaging than turning down profitable tables, or overfolding in certain spots for example.

The biggest downside to my approach is that often, I just find myself staring at the lobby feeling quite deflated that there aren't any or many tables worth playing.

It's much worse on other larger sites for game quality but at least on those, it is easier to get volume because the software is much more amenable to it.

The crux of the issue is that NL holdem is slowly but surely drying up everywhere. Too many players that are good enough to make the games hard to beat whilst not making much/anything themselves and not enough players losing quickly enough to cover the overheads.

There isn't much of a solution to that problem. Capping the number of tables players can play would help but sites won't do that, so what we have now is mostly players that are good enough to win small or break even in £50nl or higher games that barely run cramming themselves into lower stakes games and ramping the volume up to try and compensate for the inevitable drop in hourly.

If the microstakes tables were capped in terms of how many tables regs could be at, it would protect the weaker players a little by allowing them to play at slightly softer tables and it might encourage more higher stakes games to run for those who used to play higher but now play lower because it's where they can make their volume.

Remainer · May 2019

ALAN_18 said:

Remainer said:
When I played fulltime on Party a few years back 100nl/200nl I ran at 6bb+ for over 300K hands and so thought I'd got the game sussed only to run breakeven for the next 100K. I've had an 80 BI under EV run too. This game messes with your mind.
Looking at variance simulators does help to get your head around it a bit.
Although I only play for 'fun' nowadays, my approach was similar to The Don's. Game select like crazy and don't battle regs. Always try and maximise your edge at the table. It's hard to do but always try and only play when you are on your 'A' game by understanding the mental side of the game.
Seems to me Alan you are on your way, as you are asking the right questions.
Hello mate and thanks for your reply

That is at 100/200NL though where your egde is going to be very smaller than at 10NL, I am only just beginning to understand variance but I still could not imagine a 100k hand breakeven stretch at 10NL (however I am breakeven over about the last 20-30 hours)

6bb/100 at 100/200NL is crushing also mate well done, what year was this and what stake do you think is comparable to 100NL on Party back then to these days on Sky ?

GL at the tables...

I'm not really in a position to discuss the games above 4NL atm. I only deposited a small amount on Sky a few months back with a view to grinding it up and have only played the odd session of 10 NL. so not enough volume to assess the standard. From what I've seen so far you can find good games. Best listen to feedback from the more established Sky regs.
Despite now being rolled for 10 & 20nl, playing at 4NL has made me rusty v regs as my opponents in the main at 4NL are so poor, so i'll need to adjust to more competent players when I play higher. There are a handful of decent 'regs' at 4NL but as you are aware they are in the minority.
Another consideration is that on Party I had a great HUD so it was easy to categorise players at a glance without playing many hands vs the other player. I'll have to start making notes as I move up too.
I don't mind playing without a HUD and enjoy playing on Sky so far as it's not full of obvious pseudo GTO bots that you have on Party.
gl

Longest Downswing or Breakeven stretch @ 6-max cash ???

Comments