hi all

great thread...

obv variance happens and is a bitch! but is there anyway way you may be able to measure if you running bad or hot.. or whether ur just not playing well! or has anyone done this?

I suppose u could run something like Poker tracker and somehow pull out all your flips, or the times you got rivered or hit your 2 outer...

really intrested in this as i know some players (not p fivers) who just clain they run bad but are really good! Not sure if I believe them entirely either!

cheers buffy

 

Originally Posted by stevie444

 

Originally Posted by Faecal Matter

This is really interesting. Is there some user friendly program to do these variance calculations? free download?

RVG's ROI simulator

^^This is technically for sngs I think but can be used for mtts just the same.

ty stevie

 

Originally Posted by bonflizubi

 

Originally Posted by m_hawk_1

 

Originally Posted by Faecal Matter

This is really interesting. Is there some user friendly program to do these variance calculations? free download?

Not that I know of. I just wrote up a quick program without a real user interface to see how the numbers worked out and to satisfy my own curiosity.

I'm still wondering how you did it. I've done lots of stats work but I can't think of an obvious method here. I'd run a monte carlo simulation on it, but it's not obvious how I'd define the average player to begin with. I started thinking about the idea that the average player's finish would be random - over enough tourneys they would be placing in any given position an equal number of times, but that didn't make any sense once I thought through this.

THen I thought, well, maybe the finish results ought to just be assigned for the average player according to the standard bell curve, but that seems too simple too.

Really curious what method you used to come to your conclusions since people are taking em as gospel.

Thanks!

Meh, I never claimed they were gospel. Just good enough to give a good indication of the variance you're "average" 80% ROI player might run into.

Mostly it's just a whole lot of random number generating going on inside a couple of big loops. The assumptions are pretty much exactly as I stated (I simplified them a little).

I generated a random number (1 to 100) - if it was < 16, the good player was ITM. From there I generated a random number to determine whether the good player final tabled or not (made it twice as likely as statistically probable - eg 18/153 instead of 9/153. And then drew another random number to determine actual final table finish for player with chance of positions 1,2,3 weighted heavier than 7,8,9. All of this is based on a good players skill at closing tournaments, as well as likelihood of having a bigger chip stack entering final table etc.

When player didn't final table but was ITM, I assigned them the avg cash based on remaining prize pool (saves a lot of processing and over any decent tournament sample size is going to give almost exactly the same result as having incremental pay steps between final table and bubble - because the diff between 153rd and 10th is only $300 - vs the difference between 9th and 1st being almost $9k).

So I looped this through x number of tournaments for 100 players. Tallying total profit, deducting buyins and dividing by the # of tourns for total profit per tourn. I also kept track of the longest non-cash streak as I went.

Like I said straight up, it's a bit crude, but think it helps give a reasonable indication as to the impact of variance on results.

this could be the most sobering poker thread on here in a long time :(. none the less, good post.

so the fact I had a 71 non-cash streak on bodog means I was almost close to as rock-bottom as you can be? Hahaha niceeee