everytime you sit down, do you sit at the same $level or sit where the game looks good?

9/19/2006 11:18:30 AM

pwnt

9/19/2006 11:18:31 AM

joe17669, who the fuck are you????

I usually stick to playing the same level.

9/19/2006 11:44:35 AM

^ hahahahah

on that note. TWWSOP tonight.

9/19/2006 11:52:20 AM

Seriously. I'm having a fucking conversation with Ben and someone just buts in without anything productive to say. This isn't chit chat dude.

9/19/2006 11:57:38 AM

nahh its tww get used to it


anyone ever make a big withdrawl and lose some self esteem cause their account isn't nearly as healthy?

9/19/2006 12:19:25 PM

not really, I started doing it since I was tired of loaning out money interest free to poker sites

9/19/2006 12:23:11 PM

Quote :

"joe17669, who the fuck are you???? I usually stick to playing the same level. "

quick note, be back in a bit, got busy with work.

his thing was that he had done the page number thing, but i beat him to the top post on the page, thats all.

nothing to do with the thread really.

9/19/2006 1:10:15 PM

I still stand by my initial statement.

9/19/2006 1:16:00 PM

Quote :

"theoretical question then, would you rather stick your stack in getting 1.3:1 on a 75% lock or getting 5:1 on a 25% lock? what youre saying is taht youd rather do the 1.3:1 since you are more concerned about $/hr than maximizing value. varaince is lower, much higher chance of actually winning. which one is actually playing well?"

david, you're dancing around things here. which would you pick?


theoretically, both choices would indicate playing well.

for value however, the second choice seems more correct to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sure bb/100 can be translated o $/hr, but i wonder how youd account for variance in your $/hr rates.

some days are just losers statistically. when do you configure your $/hr?

i ask the game selection question for obvious reasons. Its a much larger issue with plo and plo8 than nlhe, due to the number of games available. if the 100s are locked up with a low VP$IP or high PFR% or low AVGPot size, id rather just not play. if the 50s look better, ill step in. if the 200s look better, ill step in. game selection is a key, just as it is with nlhe, but probably even more so when the games get slim as they do in omaha variants. what good is a game full of guys who it takes a monster to pry any chips from? but this is elementary and an aside...

if i accumulated data on a strictly $/hr rate, id have no idea how i was doing in these different game levels for a few reasons. For the most obvious, the stakes. Next, some tables get 30 h/hr, some get 60, theres a difference there too.

its means of standardizing your win rate versus hole card distrobutions, eliminating other factors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thing with the $/hr making people think incorrectly is that often times people fall into a few different situations.

1.) Stuck on the session.. make interesting plays to "make a winning session"
2.) get hot for a few thousand hands, get too big for your pants, move up too quick
3.) fall intot he mindset of "its all skill" when winning or "getting really unlucky" when running cold.

distortions of the conceptualization of long term win rate.

9/19/2006 1:52:22 PM

I would pick the second option. I always used to keep track of $/hr but no longer do so since it is not my primary income.

1.) Stuck on the session.. make interesting plays to "make a winning session"
I usually set time limits on my sessions to quit even if I am down.

2.) get hot for a few thousand hands, get too big for your pants, move up too quick
Like I said earlier I usually play the same limits.

3.) fall intot he mindset of "its all skill" when winning or "getting really unlucky" when running cold.
Being a math guy that never happens to me.

9/19/2006 2:01:37 PM

this is pointless.

9/19/2006 2:05:26 PM

Quote :

"but plo by nature is one of the highest variance games in poker. oddly enough, even moreso than stud."

I'm a bit confused by this statement. Variance in terms of swings? Short-term, this would be true.

NLHE involves more risk taking. There are more opportunities to win. PLO is much slower-paced, but the edges are larger. It's about waiting for the nuts or near-nuts. So I thought PLO actually had less variance in terms of expected value and win rate.

9/19/2006 2:18:20 PM

Personally I've had much larger swings playing 1-2 plo than 1-2 nlhe.

9/19/2006 2:27:42 PM

Well, yeah, the swings are larger in PLO. Just wasn't sure what exactly was meant by "variance."

9/19/2006 3:01:43 PM

I assume he meant standard deviation.

9/19/2006 3:04:43 PM

a piss poor explanation.

the variance is a measure of the spread of the probability density function of your EV as a poker player. standard deviation is a square root of the variance, and is a measure of how sharp or broad the spread is. the larger the std dev, or sigma, the larger your variance. variance = sigma^2.

in poker terms, this relates to expective values.

For AA, the EV is ~ 4.5 big bets in LHE. So, over 100,000 tries, the EV is exactly one number.

the variance accounts for the distrobution of how wide of a range we could expect as possible endpionts for the hand. obviously, there will be diffent situations that arise for different hand possibilites.

like,

say your ev for AA is 4.5 BB or, lets say at 2/4 $18.

you could have possible outcomes of:

.......
-$40
-$39
-$38
....
$17
$18
$19
...
$57
$58
$59

etc.

as possible outcomes. the vairance accounts for how often youll get different outcomes.



lets say for these outcomes, well assign an arbitrary number of times for our PDF of this widget-esqe example for AA.

.......
-$40 - 5
-$39 - 7
-$38 - 10
....
$17 - 1,110
$18 - 1,250
$19 - 1,112
...
$57 - 11
$58 - 6
$59 - 5




the standard deviation is the measurement of the likelyhood (or number of times instances in your try set) of what outcome in the PDF you will arrive at, what percentage of the time. a wider STDV obvoiusly results in a larger variance for the game.

larger variance = larger swings, higher STDV.







[edit]


by measurement for the PDF i mean that a +/-1 sigma event from your median, (read EV) occurs 67% of the time. a +/- 2 sigma event occurs like 87% or something like that.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : e ]

another edit:

just google it.

or get out your stats 371 book and start applying it to real life.








[oddly enough i learned more about stats from casino whoring than i ever did in school]

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : e]

9/19/2006 3:23:50 PM

a thinking player is pushing draws(taking advantage of the stigma that you need the nuts to win a pot in PLO) and often price themselves into big pots, creating a high variance. nut peddlers have a pretty low variance, they're just not likely to win or lose many big pots.


nut peddling works better against bad players at lower limits, a more aggressive approach is harder to read(it should be obvious that you want to push your big hands too, if you're going to push draws) and more profitable against good players.

either style should go broke in that 9's full hand, you are being results oriented david




[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 3:50:26 PM

Quote :

"you are being results oriented david"

I admit I didn't see the 4 in his hand initially so I probably would have made the same play knowing only a straight flush could beat me, but I still stand by my original position. If it was the 5th best hand and quads were a possibility I would have just called.

9/19/2006 4:00:39 PM

just calling is in violation of this:

Quote :

"I would pick the second option."

9/19/2006 4:03:39 PM

I didn't see the 4 in his hand either, but I'm still going broke there without it


you sir, are a coward

9/19/2006 4:03:49 PM

Fine fine. I concede. I suck at plo. I will never be as good as Chris Ferguson. There! I said it! Happy now?

9/19/2006 4:08:24 PM

just calling is in violation of this:

Quote :

"I would pick the second option."

How so?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2006 4:09:22 PM

I've just recently started playing/theorizing about the game in recent weeks, I'm certainly no expert with a mere 2000 hands logged at 1/2


But come on, you were monday morning quarterbacking it there

9/19/2006 4:12:25 PM

Shit, a football reference, just smile and nod David, smile and nod

9/19/2006 4:15:19 PM

in the example the lost value is explicit.

in the hand, the lost value is implicit. it doesnt turn into what hands were turned up, it turns into the ranges of hands that will stack off against you there.

how many combinations beat you, vs. how many will pay you off.

lower full, weak player will pay you off with nut flush, someone underfull, or something of the sort.

if you are willing to extract slightly more value by taking a longer shot, you should be willing to extract more value out of probable ranges. calling off is missing value in this spot, even though we would have lost.

9/19/2006 4:16:17 PM

Where did you get 5:1 ?

9/19/2006 4:17:56 PM

I wonder if the guy who posted the hand has seen what he created?

haha


david, i made it up.

its analogus not direct

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : e]

9/19/2006 4:18:18 PM

So, you could be getting 2:1 for all you know.

9/19/2006 4:22:36 PM

youre being too goddamned literal here

its a concept

9/19/2006 4:28:22 PM

I understand the concept.

9/19/2006 4:29:10 PM

ever thought about going into politics david?

9/19/2006 4:30:47 PM

Heh. Not the first time I've been asked that question.

9/19/2006 4:31:41 PM

dont forget twwsop tonight

i think its nlhe.

since i wont he horse last week, i think im due for a last place busto tonight.

9/19/2006 4:44:06 PM

Damn, I may have to miss it agian.

9/19/2006 5:10:57 PM

opt i was wrong, plo8.

9/19/2006 5:18:35 PM

First I find out you made up 5:1 and now this...

9/19/2006 5:43:14 PM

I would have made up something like 3.5:1

it seems more official

9/19/2006 6:50:45 PM

Page 120 has been entertaining. Thanks, guys.

9/19/2006 6:57:12 PM

hey fellow twwers.

i want to play in the uspc omaha 8 event this sunday morning.

however, i dont exaclty want to front $550 to get in.

What im proposing is a selling of shares for my entry.

let's get a tww pool together for it.

you buy a share in my interest, if i cash, youll get 100% back plus percentage of winnings.

If i can garner half the buy in, ill play. other wise, i wont.

you know you want a piece of my action.

if this goes through, ill make calls to have someone post updates on stacks and the like.

you know you want to.

9/19/2006 8:00:26 PM

what is the potential ROI sir

9/19/2006 8:01:38 PM

large.

9/19/2006 8:14:02 PM

Whats the buy in to the main event there?

9/19/2006 8:20:23 PM

10k.

last year the lo8 event had over 300 entries.

you can do the math.

9/19/2006 8:22:07 PM

Damn, there are a ton of $10k buyins now. I wonder why the USPC hasnt taken off as much as the WSOP. Werent there only like 800 in the main event in AC last year?

Well, I dont expect it to be as big as the WSOP, but youd think it could get around 2k atleast.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 8:24:29 PM

the uspc main event is traditionally smaller than other 10ks

thats the last 10k event id ever play.

but this omaha, with bing on the weekend and all should be hot

9/19/2006 8:26:50 PM

what are you planning on doing saturday night?

9/19/2006 8:33:16 PM

absolutely nothing.

ive got no friends or cable vision here =(

i read and post on tww.

9/19/2006 8:36:05 PM

how much are you thinking each stake should be? 10? 20? 50?

9/19/2006 8:38:54 PM

10 people at $50 wouldnt be to unreasonable I wouldnt think.

^^I thought you made bank online though man, and $500 wasnt that much to you.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 8:39:59 PM