1. i've played 37 4$ 180's in a row i believe...

    i only have a 14th and a 16th..

    is this normal variance? What should i do?
    Add smwatkin to Rail
  2. bad run ,...... played with you b4 you play weel just keep at it.
    Add szarz20 to Rail
  3. kill self..obv
    Add Saintsfan1 to Rail
  4. Ive played like 40 in a row without cashing. Im pretty much on my way there again. Im playing some tonight. Look me up and take my chips.
    Add AFink93 to Rail
  5. IMO not normal variance at all in those. Maybe u r running extremely bad but should still be puttin up a little better then that.
    Add VINNY VT to Rail
  6. what's your name AFink...Mr.Fink?
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  7. i have had good results in these before. I play only these usually...but i took a two week break in april after a bad run came back only 2 run worse.
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  8. Play through it you'll Hit a 1st, 1st, 2nd at some point and you will feel invincable then back to will it ever happen again. Rinse and repeat. GL
    Add mariebadee to Rail
  9. it's come to the point where whoever donks me i think of creative ways that i could kill them.

    Or wonder if i could have them declared legally incompetant.

    this hand for instance.

    <span>Couldn’t get the HH table closed</span>

    <span> </span>

    <span>2200 at 100/200</span>

    <span> </span>

    <span>Shoved UTG..next position instacalls…</span>

    <span> </span>

    <span>AJ</span>

    <span> </span>

    <span>Donkey calls with KQ</span>

    <span> </span>

    <span>K on turn gg </span>
    Raise
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  10. 37 now equals 39

    KJ&lt;J9 all in pre

    A9&lt;A3
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  11. I feel ya. I haven't cashed in like 1 out of 20. Last night I got it all in with AA v AQ sooted on a Q high flop only to loses to runner runner royal flush.
     
    Add POKER_PANDA to Rail
  12. if you want to have a real good laugh. Email stars and ask them how many times you have been dealt AA for a month and the stats on it.

    You should win around 80%

    for April i'm 73% with AA 65 times

    Showdown i'm 54%

    Bubbled with AA (18th - 25th) 16 times in April. I only played 150 or so 4$ 180's in april which is disgusting.

    got it all in behind with AA twice where they flopped an underset. Usually flush draws, but a lot of the time just top pair would draw out. Or bottom pair

    This will only happen in 4$ 180's i can pretty much guarantee it.

    These stats should give anyone confidence in variance.
    Raise
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  13. Suicide is a reasonable option.
    Add computerb to Rail
  14. in 4.40s ppl limp with ace-rag like there slowplaying it,4.40s=worst poker ever
     
    Add FishOnTilt to Rail
  15. i already tried suicide and the fucking donkey that made my toaster didn't make it strong enough.. It didn't kill me when i took it in my bathtub with me.
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  16. dont give up man, they are very beatable, just been playing them for 3 weeks and counted up how many i had played, also 37, i have 6 final tables with 3 other cashes, 1 1st and 2 seconds. Just play them tight aggressive, the play is so bad people will GIVE you their chips when you get a hand. Don't try to force anything.

    At bubble time it is so important to know how your table plays, people will tell you to abuse the bubble but dont do it just to do it. You have to know who will play back and you can't do it too much, I aim for one blind steal per round IF the table will allow it. But it is not a strict steal, i do it with a hand that I can play after the flop with some confidence. Oh and also, I thnk people in these tournies over play position, the blinds are not really worth stealing until the ante stages, before then i feel the risk is too high for the reward. This is my style, some may think it is completely wrong.

    hang in there, they are beatable, learn from your mistakes and change your game.
    Raise
    Add aberneal to Rail
  17. why would u joke about suicide...
    Add feedmechipps to Rail
  18. because its funny to some people
    Thread StarterAdd smwatkin to Rail
  19. I thought you excluded yourself from Stars for 180 days AFink? Have I missed something?
     
    Add CupcakeTrev to Rail
  20. Ive played about 12 of these, and managed a 19th in the last 1 so ive stopped playing them for a bit.
    hope to drop 1 some day, its not the money but the chalenge..
    Add stephen07 to Rail
  21. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#eeeedd><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top> </TD><TD>Re(3): 180 man grinders...post your results
    by bfactor on 5/4/2007 14:44 </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><NOBR> </NOBR></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellPadding=2 border=0 celspacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD>In 1-table sngs, a sample of 1,000 sngs played still leaves something like a +/- of 5% from actual ROI at a 95% confidence interval if I remember correctly. 180-man sngs pay the top 10% rather than the top 33.3333% of the field, plus only the top few spots get any of the big money, so only the top 2% of the field makes real money. I would say the variance in 180-man sngs is roughly 10 times higher than the variance in 9-man sngs. This means that with even a seemingly large sample of 1,000 180-mans your roi would only be accurate to within about 50% at a 95% confidence interval for that sample size. You would need to play like 5,000 of them minimum just to be 95% confident that your actual ROI was withing 10% of you &quot;real&quot; ROI. A sample of 50, 100, or 200 sngs literally means nothing, when you consider that even a 1,000 sngs sample for the 180-mans would only be a large enough sample to know to within about plus or minus FIFTY PERCENT of your true ROI.

    This right here shows that MTTs do in fact have the highest variance by far per unit money risked over any other form of poker. NL cash games for example have much lower variance than 180-man sngs (which many people do not realize btw). Everything has much lower variance than mtts. 1-table sngs do. Limit hold'em does. No limit hold'em does. Heads up no limit hold'em does. Basically everything. Hell, even Zefa, who was supposed to be either the best or one of the best 180-man grinders on all of pocketfives.com went on a streak of MORE THAN FORTY straight no-cashes in the 180-mans. Imagine if those had been his first 43 sngs, rather than ocurring like halfway through his 180-man career instead. He would have been down nearly $200 right off the bat, and it likely would have taken him a hundred or more sngs, just to get his ROI positive from that.

    All I am saying is that, although these things are quite obviously incredibly soft (this is true), they are still setup in a manner (top 3 out of 180 make most of the money) that it is DESIGNED to make for huge variance. That's just how tourneys are. So try not to do stuff like play 50 $4 50 $11 and 50 $22 180-mans and then decide that the $22's must in fact be the softest because your ROI was highest in those. To make a conclusion like this, you would need to play not 10, or 50, or 100 of them at each level, but rather about 5,000.

    And lastly, if you guys don't believe me, I would recommend that you search the archives on here and the 2 + 2 forums to look up detailed analyses of variance, in all forms of poker. I have seen several good articles that analyze the variance associated with different forms of poker, and I found this information incredibly useful to know. This is because if you understand how deep variance is typically capable of running for whichever form of poker you are playing, it helps you differentiate between a bad run of variance, or you simply playing crappy. Like, say for nl hold'em it says that a 5ptbb/100 winner of nl hold'em ring games should expect at least one 10,000-15,000 hand breakeven or losing stretch, over a sample of say 200,000 hands. Say it also says that it would be 10,000 times less likely for this same player to go on a 40,000 hand breakeven or losing stretch. Well in this case, it would be great to know this information, because this way if you went on a seemingly relatively long stretch of not winning (15,000 hands) you could realize that if you are playing well, and using a winning style that has been winning for you in the past over large 100,000+ hand samples, it is not you playing poorly, but rather just variance, if you are not playing differently than before. Whereas if you went on a 40,000 hand breakeven or losing stretch you would immediately know, using statistics and probability, that it is almost certainly not bad variance, but rather you playing badly, that is causing a downswing of this kind of magnitude. THIS is why it really is important to fully analyse and study how variance works before you try to take poker too seriously. It won't improve your game directly, but it will help you sooooo much psychologically for the remainder of your career, that this alone will most likely boost your longterm results. Learn it.

    -bfactor </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    gg thread etc
    Raise
    Add bfactor to Rail
  22. Bfactor,

    Though I won't disagree with you that your statistics work is right (though after 1,000, I'm shocked that you can only tell within 50%, I would think you would be within 15 or so %. Now, if you were doing 98% confidence, but with 95% confidence, I'm surprised.) But, that's neither here nor there.

    The problem with quoting statistics like this is that many people can just blame variance while they'll donk away hundreds and thousands of dollars. I think at some point, you have to wonder, if I played a 1,000 and I'm a losing player, maybe I need to get better, not just blame variance, and say statisitically I could be a winning player.

    Now, 40 is really not out of line. I think it's worth taking some hand histories and review the critical hands of the game. Are you making the right decisions? If so, then keep doing it. If not, then that's something you can begin working on.
    Raise
    Add lordxixor101 to Rail
  23. after so many non cashes i'd probably would switch to black jack or Roulette (but only with the zero and double zero configuration)...anyways, i think you might be playing too loose and are playing a shit load of mediocre hands. evaluate your play or switch to other SNGs.
    Raise
    Add Jack_Ace75 to Rail
  24. I was crushing the bubble yesterday in one of the $4/180's, went from short stack to chipleader from 25ppl to 18. Then, continued to dominate to only have QQ 2/3 hands in a row get two outered both times and finish 10th. I hate this game.

    Good thing I rivered a 3 for a straight flush and a $250 pot in a cash game a little while later to keep me thinking I can comeback today and win again.

    Such emotional swings...
    Raise
    Add Brooklyn999 to Rail
  25. lordxixor101,

    Unless my 1-table variance numbers were incorrect (I am almost positive they were correct), I think my estimate for the conversion from 1-table sng variance to 20-table sng variance was roughly correct as well. Here is why:

    1-table sng pays top 3 spots: 33.33333% of field finishes ITM every sng.

    20-table sng pays top 18 spots: 10.0% of field finishes ITM every sng.

    Now, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that instead of structuring the prizepool payout structure the way they have it in real life on pokerstars right now, let's pretend that they instead set it up where although still only top 18 spots pay out, they all pay out equally (1st pays out same as 7th pays out same as 18th). With this structure, the longterm variance of the 180-mans would be almost THREE TIMES as large as the longterm variance of 1-table sngs (it would actually be 3 times larger, but I had to say only "almost" 3 times as large, rather than precisely 3 times as large because of the pact that the 1-table sngs didn't have a flat payout structure, so in reality maybe only 2.5 or 2.7 times as large variance or whatever (yes I actually am taking all this shit into account lol)).

    Okay so if you are already almost trippling the variance just due to paying out 3 times less spots, then obviously the longterm variance is going to much mroe than merely tripple from 5% to 15% ROI-accuracy at a 95% confidence interval once you take into account that in reality pokestars does not use anything remotely resemblind a dead-flat payout structure, and instead has it set to where the top 3 spots out of 180 contain well over half of the entire prizepool. This should more than tripple the variance, just switching from dead-flat payout to the actual current pokerstars prizepool structure. Since 3 * 3 is 9, not 3, I disagree with your 15% estimate in favor of my 50% estimate, or maybe at lowest maybe 30-40%. You can see why I simply can't agree with 15% though. Anyways, most likely you will never even see this post anyway as I already tried to post this once before and it error-messaged me, and if it does it again I'm not typing it out a third time lol. Gl me.

    -bfactor
    Raise
    Add bfactor to Rail
  26. thats kind of depressing bfactor... two MTT players of identical ability could easily be categorized as a pro and a donkey based on what we consider to be long term results due solely to variance. your post kind of makes MTTs sound like crap shoots.
    Raise
    Add msuper73 to Rail
  27. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#eeeedd><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top> </TD><TD>Re(4): 37 4$ 180's
    by msuper73 on 5/11/2007 14:44 </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><NOBR> </NOBR></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellPadding=2 border=0 celspacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD>thats kind of depressing bfactor... two MTT players of identical ability could easily be categorized as a pro and a donkey based on what we consider to be long term results due solely to variance. your post kind of makes MTTs sound like crap shoots. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    The stuff in yellow is true. Most poker players do not care to worry themselves with the basic statistics and probability of variance, and focus soley on their cardplay, thus most poker players are extremely ignorant to the dynamics of variance, particularly as to how it changes immensely depending on what form of poker you play (heads up sngs for example have much lower longterm variance than any other form of poker, whereas large-field MTTs have much higher longterm variance than any other form of poker). However by no means is the part in red correct. A crapshoot is defined as something which is essentially worthless to bother playing, because it is neutral or negative EV in the longrun (at least this is my interpretation). Whereas MTTs as of right now are not anywhere near neutral EV. An outstanding player can achieve like a 100% ultralongterm ROI in MTTs. Although the variance would be enormous enough to make many n00bs think that it is all just luck, any sensible person can see that if he simply played long enough, and simply really did just play SEVERAL THOUSAND MTTs he would undoubtedly be up a good amount of money assuming he played great poker all the way through the entire sample.

    More importantly however, note that even if this great player DIDN'T play 5,000 MTTs to insure himself a healthy longterm profit, and only play 10 or 20 MTTs, a tiny tiny sample, it would STILL be +EV for him to do this. Sure it is way less likely for him to ensure himself a profit over such a small sample, however regardless of what eactually happens, it was +EV for him to play even this tiny sample, because he has a POSITIVE expectation in every single mtt he enters ever, regardless of what results he actually has in any one single one of those mtts, due to being a much higher better than average poker player.

    Think of it this way: Say that for everyone in your entire states BESIDES YOU if they played the lottery they had one chance in 20 million of winning the lottery, and that if they won, they would win 10 million dollars, due to lets pretend the gov't steals half the prizepool for kix. Okay, so its a negative EV game because you are expecting a -50% longterm ROI in this game. However lets say unlike everyone else in your state, you for some reason (who cares why, I'm just making it for sake of argument) get paid 100 million if you win, yet like everyone else you have only one chance in 20 million of winning (again, I'm making up these numbers just for sake of argument, they aren't correct, but I will still be able to make my point). Well you have a longterm expectation of POSITIVE 500%. For every 1 dollar you bet on the lotto, you are expecting 5 in return. However, even though you are 10 times &quot;better&quot; at the lottery than everyone else, nobody is ever gonna fuckin notice, cuz if you play like 50 times a year, maybe 2,500 times in your lifetime, it is very unlikely that wou will ever win the lottery, so due to the extreme variance of the lottery due to the insane payout structure of 1 place payed out of millions. But just because you are most likely not going to win the lotto, doesn't mean it isn't +EV to be buying lotto tickets. It just means that the sample size required to take advantage of this strongly positive ROi would be insanely large, to the point of massive impracticality. So you have to try to understand the difference between results and expectation. Expectation is what actually matters, it's just difficult to deal with extremely high variance games, regardless of what your expectation is, given that we only have a finite amount of time on this planet, so something really are simply too high-variance for us as humans to casually be able to recognize what is really going on, without taking time to actually stop an think about it. I'm rambling...

    -bfactor
    Raise
    Add bfactor to Rail
  28. no offense bfactor, i dont know the details and i have only taken one course on statistics, but im pretty sure you dont just multiply the variance by 3 just because top 10% are paid as opposed to top 30%, it is a little more complicated than that
    Raise
    Add alekos to Rail
  29. I get what youre saying. Ive been a profitable cash game player for the past two years and only recently started playing some MTTs for a change of scenery. Ive had some decent results and have been able to make it deep with some consistency. Ive not had a truly big score yet but it has definitely been profitable so far. Its easy to see how one or two big scores can have a tremendous effect on ROI. Its also easy to see how players profit expectancy should be increased by consistently making it deep in tournaments and giving yourself shots at a big win. However, its also not hard to imagine that even though you might be a good player and make good decisions, if the coinflips and bad beats dont go your way at the right times, you might never achieve a big score. I guess i would be more correct to say my "shot" at MTTs is more of a crapshoot than the tournaments themselves.
    Raise
    Add msuper73 to Rail

Similar Threads