Variance According To Mason Malmuth V Chip Reese

[Rman3911 0]

So Mason Malmuth talks about standard deveation over the long run (sp?) and Chip Reese has said if he has 3, 4, 5 times, sessions in a row in which he loses, he wonders to HIMSELF what HE is doing wrong. Thoughts?

[Zach6668 513]

Thoughts?

This post makes no sense.

[Flushgarden 0]

Yeah the title of this topic gave me hope...but that hope quickly vanished after I clicked on it.Care to make that a little more understandable OP?

[quadaces 0]

I think he posted this to show how much of a dumb as.s he is!

[NicksDad1970 0]

Right now I'm on pain pills so excuse me if I don't make sense.But OP are you saying Chip winders if he's doing something wrong if he has several losing sessions?Makes sense to me. Chip wins because he doesn't lose his cool and has great game selection, so I'm told. But when you lose your butt off so much you question yourself. I know I do and I'm exactly 1/1000th the player Chip is/When I'm running real well I wonder how people could possibly lose. When I'm running bad I wonder how the heck someone could even win a tourney.

[sacopoo 0]

Chip wins because he doesn't lose his cool and has great game selection, so I'm told.

Yea great game selection playing in the biggest game at bellagio against the best players in the world. I advise you to get off the pain pills.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

My guess is that OP is wondering whether the great Chip Reese even understands the concept of standard deviation, and variance to the extent one would think he should. Who knows.

[joelav128 0]

Yea great game selection playing in the biggest game at bellagio against the best players in the world. I advise you to get off the pain pills.

maybe he is so good that that game is a good game for him

[Nugzy 0]

Maybe Chip Reese is so good he doesnt need to fill his brain with things like variation, deviance, and all that other crap. Maybe he just plays poker one hand at a time.

[Abbaddabba 0]

... if primitive concepts like that have the potential to 'fill' your head, you've got problems.

[Spence 0]

I think it's a very good question. If only it was phrased slightly better.I think Chip Reese understand variance as well as anybody else, but I also believe looking at your game is the first step you should make when you have lost in a few sessions in a row. People use variance as any excuse when they are playing bad, and alot of people would be better off doing what Chip Reese does instead of counting on variance to stop.

[HangukMiguk 8]

I think it's a very good question. If only it was phrased slightly better.I think Chip Reese understand variance as well as anybody else, but I also believe looking at your game is the first step you should make when you have lost in a few sessions in a row. People use variance as any excuse when they are playing bad, and alot of people would be better off doing what Chip Reese does instead of counting on variance to stop.

agreed. i see a lot of people in downswings get stuck on the cards. "the cards are spitting on me. here's another monster hand...let's see how bad this gets screwed up."At that point, it may still be true that the cards are still spitting on you, but half the problem would be that you are on mental tilt. Because the cards have been bad to you lately, you instantly think every big hand you get you will lose, and not only will you lose, you will lose big pots. With said mindset, players play these big hands longer than they should, and do exactly that. You'll hang on to aces longer than you should, when if you had a clear head, you would realize that villain hit a bigger hand somewhere down the line.I'm coming off a downswing along with this same problem, just Thursday or so, I took the same approach, and decided to ask myself where I'm messing up. It's helping out.

[qyayqi 11]

this is like an ink blot test, you mostly get yourself from the question because the question is not defined.

[llou 0]

I think it's a very good question. If only it was phrased slightly better.I think Chip Reese understand variance as well as anybody else, but I also believe looking at your game is the first step you should make when you have lost in a few sessions in a row. People use variance as any excuse when they are playing bad, and alot of people would be better off doing what Chip Reese does instead of counting on variance to stop.

QFTOMG, an actual intelligent response to an OP who didn't phrase his question perfectly ... on the General Forum no less! Will miracles never cease?

[Rman3911 0]

My guess is that OP is wondering whether the great Chip Reese even understands the concept of standard deviation, and variance to the extent one would think he should. Who knows.

This is exactly what I was saying, Jesus, it wasn't that hard to understand. I'm pretty sure if you have a reading comprehension of a 10 year old you could understand what I was saying.

[NicksDad1970 0]

Yea great game selection playing in the biggest game at bellagio against the best players in the world. I advise you to get off the pain pills.

I guess I'd advise you to get on some pills period. Game selection is not just the limits you play. But also making sure to jump in when there are people playing that you feel you have a big edge over. So I feel the pills are working with me just fine there charlie.

[James D 0]

Yea great game selection playing in the biggest game at bellagio against the best players in the world. I advise you to get off the pain pills.

While the big game does have some of the world's best players, it also has some regular 'high rollers' (rich businessmen etc) who are not all that.Jennifer Harman recently said that many people are very wrong to just think that the higher the game, the better the players. She claims that she prefers playing at a higher level against these guys, for this reason, and that there are much higher standard of players, at slightly lower levels.There are also some very big fish, with very deep pockets.

[steve7stud 0]

Someone touched on this earlier. But quite a few of the truly elite poker players believe that varience is simply an excuse. It's an excuse that people use when they are playing poorly, outclassed, steaming, etc. Most poker players are far from honest with themselves about their own game. Fortunately for those people, they can rely on Matlmuth and Sklansksy and blame those losses on variance. I personally hope that everyone reads more material from Sklansky and Malmuth.

[ROGUE06 0]

Someone touched on this earlier. But quite a few of the truly elite poker players believe that varience is simply an excuse. It's an excuse that people use when they are playing poorly, outclassed, steaming, etc. Most poker players are far from honest with themselves about their own game. Fortunately for those people, they can rely on Matlmuth and Sklansksy and blame those losses on variance. I personally hope that everyone reads more material from Sklansky and Malmuth.

Very well said steve, nice post.

[Rman3911 0]

Someone touched on this earlier. But quite a few of the truly elite poker players believe that varience is simply an excuse. It's an excuse that people use when they are playing poorly, outclassed, steaming, etc. Most poker players are far from honest with themselves about their own game. Fortunately for those people, they can rely on Matlmuth and Sklansksy and blame those losses on variance. I personally hope that everyone reads more material from Sklansky and Malmuth.

You think Sklansky and Malmuth are full of it?

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

You think Sklansky and Malmuth are full of it?

People who look to short term results to define poker skill have severe misconceptions about the game. Cards rarely break even so in order to know whether you are winner or loser you need a large sample. Its usually obvious whether you are running bad or good what is less obvious is whether you are actually a winner in the game. 5 or 6 sessions tell you nothing. So I will have to disagree with the great Chip Reese, although I understand that running bad will affect your play.

[steve7stud 0]

You think Sklansky and Malmuth are full of it?

I don't disagree with them per say. I think there books serve a purpose, and they are good at being "math" guys. I've had the pleasure of playing with both of them. Both were fairly predictable, but I assume that they are winning players in their own right. Chip on the other hand is a truly world class player.....

[PoppinFresh 0]

HAY GUYS

[NoSup4U 0]

Dammit poppin, you beat me too it!Mark

[Petoria 0]

Phil Ivey said "there's no such thing as running bad, there's only playing bad"Matusow's response, "well, that's cause he's had a horseshoe up his *** for 4 years".