How bad can you run

Type in X number of hands for X winrate and this simulator will show the graphs of however many players you want it to show. Pretty cool tool if no one knows about it. Made me realize variance more than I had before.

http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tools/variance_simulator/


That's 60k hands with a 5 bb/100 winrate player's skill and 10 possible outcomes of a 60k hand run. Sucks to be guy in green.

Anyways I thought it was kind of cool, check it out.

not many of the 10 are winners ...

you should see this for PLO... or even worse mtts.

On June 09 2010 12:14 CCMoz wrote: not many of the 10 are winners ...

Only the green guy is losing.

green guy got banned for making a thread about how bad he runs

On June 09 2010 12:42 Tien wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2010 12:14 CCMoz wrote: not many of the 10 are winners ... Only the green guy is losing.

Yes but 50% of the players are losing at atlmost 40-40%< more than their skill dictates over a fairly large sample. That is a huge ass rape depending on ones volume. And the mere fact you can actually lose at a rate of like -5bb over 60k hands being a 5bb winner is beyond retarded

thanks for the thread whoosel ha, makes me sleep better at night

On June 09 2010 12:53 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2010 12:42 Tien wrote:   On June 09 2010 12:14 CCMoz wrote: not many of the 10 are winners ... Only the green guy is losing. Yes but 50% of the players are losing at atlmost 40-40%< more than their skill dictates over a fairly large sample. That is a huge ass rape depending on ones volume. And the mere fact you can actually lose at a rate of like -5bb over 60k hands being a 5bb winner is beyond retarded

Welcome to my life at PLO, and I think Milpwnya's life as well. We run worse than death. That's why I only play casually I don't know if I could stay sane if I was an everyday grinder experiencing that.

This is why I think the best way to determine your winrate is to honestly evaluate how +EV you think you play every single spot.

On June 09 2010 13:18 edzwoo wrote: This is why I think the best way to determine your winrate is to honestly evaluate how +EV you think you play every single spot.

but what about the redline? redline = life

(btw your post is very great, but almost no one knows how to do that)

variance is one big monstrous downswing, and the high point is merely running normal

holy mother of god... after 1M hands, one guy can be up 500 buy-ins or being in the red with only 1k simulations and 2ptbb/100 winrate.

With a 100bi downswing, 500k break even stretch... damn this describes my world lol

Interesting to see that a player can be a massive winner even with a winrate of 0 over 1 million hands. Kind of crazy actually.

this is why i 24 table

took me 3.5mil hands to figure that out.

On June 09 2010 13:13 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2010 12:53 Highcard wrote:   On June 09 2010 12:42 Tien wrote:   On June 09 2010 12:14 CCMoz wrote: not many of the 10 are winners ... Only the green guy is losing. Yes but 50% of the players are losing at atlmost 40-40%< more than their skill dictates over a fairly large sample. That is a huge ass rape depending on ones volume. And the mere fact you can actually lose at a rate of like -5bb over 60k hands being a 5bb winner is beyond retarded Welcome to my life at PLO, and I think Milpwnya's life as well. We run worse than death. That's why I only play casually I don't know if I could stay sane if I was an everyday grinder experiencing that.

lol word, plo is evil and fucks with your mind, but ill end up in the green this year mark my words

Having one of the bottom lines this year.

The lower your standard deviation the lower variance you'll get

i stopped at 1.5million lol

After googling a standard deviation of 80bb/100 for 6max seems reasonable, but can some of you guys check your databases to make sure we have a good estimate here?

green line riding is fun

more interesting is Large Downswing Probability

I don't even wanna know x.x

On June 09 2010 16:17 tomson wrote: After googling a standard deviation of 80bb/100 for 6max seems reasonable, but can some of you guys check your databases to make sure we have a good estimate here?

mine is at 114 over 550k hands

On June 09 2010 17:49 edzwoo wrote:

yeah u can run pretty bad, i'd rather not think about it and just keep playing tho

980k hands 100nl (6max)
std deviation bb 97.25

you can filter to only show min/max

how do we figure out our standard deviation?

^hem

variance, it happens.

On June 09 2010 18:36 Baal wrote: how do we figure out our standard deviation?

If you mean in PT3 it is under the session tab -> session details.

On June 09 2010 16:17 tomson wrote: After googling a standard deviation of 80bb/100 for 6max seems reasonable, but can some of you guys check your databases to make sure we have a good estimate here?

Mine is 84bb/100 (42.27 BB/100). This is for 6 max but only for 270k hands as that's all I have in PT3 atm. I guess it's kind of irrelevant as your own SD is the only one that matters.

Edit: Doesn't help when you divide BB by 2 instead of multiply.

Any sdev from 60-80 is about right, I think.

my stdev in big blinds/100 this year is 145, that about normal compared to u guys?

http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/470691/Your_variance_(pokertracker_stats).html

+ Show Spoiler +

Surprisingly accurate for mine. The expected shows about 12.5k bb, my graph shows 12.7k bb

i can run VERY bad
i dont need a program to tell me what!

is one big bet = one big blind or = two big blinds?

On June 10 2010 05:11 Royal_Rumble wrote: is one big bet = one big blind or = two big blinds?

Two, coming from fixed limit terminology.

yeah i personally had a 300k hand breakeven stretch which included a 75~ bi downswing and running 140~ bi's under expectation last year.
i think i've said to a number of people that have had bad runs, it can be soooosososo much worse than you think it is.

On June 10 2010 05:26 KeanuReaver wrote: yeah i personally had a 300k hand breakeven stretch which included a 75~ bi downswing and running 140~ bi's under expectation last year. i think i've said to a number of people that have had bad runs, it can be soooosososo much worse than you think it is.

God is punishing you for making me think "keanu reaver" and about reavers whenever i see keanu reaves in the movies.

Forrest gump is michael johnson for me.

EV alone does not even come close to describing how good or bad someone runs. What about simple coolers? What about coolers once you figure in table dynamics? What about a shit river that beats you, but you still have to bet or call?

This who graph for your life that so many people are obsessed with when it comes to EV, the redline, or w/e is nothing but a waste of time. Poker has variance. It can be huge. Who knew.

On June 10 2010 07:39 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2010 05:26 KeanuReaver wrote: yeah i personally had a 300k hand breakeven stretch which included a 75~ bi downswing and running 140~ bi's under expectation last year. i think i've said to a number of people that have had bad runs, it can be soooosososo much worse than you think it is. God is punishing you for making me think "keanu reaver" and about reavers whenever i see keanu reaves in the movies.

all this info shows that im either unlucky or i suck. i hate knowing.

all of this doesnt surprise me, considering how many variables exist in poker and how many forms of "running bad" that can't even be properly measured

This is why it's important to run good.

lol every pokerplayer thinks the time where they were winning was their stnd winrate and all other times were the lowest line on that graph

I just realised maybe I was a BE player forever and i finally stopped running epicly good

eh, when I went on some epic downswings it really kills the confidence and fucks with your head but if you stick with it you'll end up winning (assuming you don't suck)

Your non-sd winnings can be a pretty strong indicator of how well you're playing overall.

These graphs only reaffirmed my believes about how good/bad someone can run.

poker is a sick game in how a little run bad, can make you play a little worse, can make you lose confidence, can make you believe you're no longer a winner.

are speaking for yourself? cause you always seem depressed

On June 10 2010 17:14 Highcard wrote: are speaking for yourself? cause you always seem depressed

i think everyone is. coz that's how games have fucked our heads up over time

i wonder if all those downswings make us mentally stronger or just fuck us up