New Challenge (old Challenge)

[Vtlaxer09 4]

does.not.compute.

and poems from king1305 aka thegreatkinger aka sean king

[RDog 0]

does.not.compute.

Duh

[Snamuh 0]

Duh

Why do they call them fingers? You never see them fing.

[NoSup4U 0]

I think you missed several posts regarding this subject.

For sure. Just saying, he got attacked right away over his initial post, which I didn't think was that bad or off. But I guess its kind of like ExMatt. When you say something reasonable, because of your history of questionable posts, everyone is ready to jump all over you

We were both somewhat wrong in our MSN discussion. My clarified statement would hold true, though variance itself (in the true form of the term) wouldn't decrease, the way it is perceived by the poker community (i.e. downswing) would increase in likelihood. Your argument merely just said a greater number of tables would even out the effects of variance, but playing more tables over the same sample wouldn't necessarily reduce variance itself (and almost certainly would do the opposite). Yes, playing more hands is likely to smooth out the effects of variance but the initial statement made by GrinderMJ was about my 1200 hand sample, where I said it is more abnormal due to 4 tabling, which is certainly true.

I guess I'm still a little confused. If I understood your argument correctly, if you play less tables you are able to play better (make better decisions) which will decrease variance. But to me, variance has nothing to do with how well you play, and thinking of it like that is what Chen was saying can make you attribute losing to 'bad variance' instead of bad play. I shouldn't be able to 'play better' to decrease variance. Variance is just a function of how close to expected value you end up after you get your money in, over a set of hands. (thats a Mike Caro definition)So in my mind, variance is just applied to when you are putting money in, how much are you making in that pot based on what you expect when you put your money in. (Playing less tables and putting money in 'better' doesn't change variance, it just changes the expected value you have in the hand.) Thats easy to think about when all the money goes in on the flop and you have a set vs a flush, or stuff like that. Its less obvious when you flop a straight draw and peel one off on the flop, miss, and then fold to another bet. Some days we 'run great' and spike everything we draw to on the turn. Other days we 'run bad' and run KK through AA preflop over and over. These are all examples of what I think the variance is in poker.Variance is something we could probably all do without thinking so much about. I suspect everyone else is like me, we think about variance much more in the justifying why we're running bad then we do justifying why we're crushing.Also, I'm definitely not an expert here and if anyone doesn't like how I think about variance or whatever thats cool by me. Its really not too important of an issue for me because I don't think most people in here are losing money because they blame variance too much or anything like that. Like, even if Snamuh and I totally disagree on whatever, its not like this is a material issue in our lives I don't think.Mark

[whatgreatis 0]

Very last hand of my last session yesterday. I had closed all my other tables and hit "sit out next hand." I wish all sessions could end this way.Absolute PokerNo Limit Holdem Ring gameBlinds: $0.25/$0.506 playersConverterStack sizes:UTG: $166.88UTG+1: $102.72Hero: $50.05Button: $29.97SB: $53.12BB: $29.25Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is CO with 7 7 UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, Hero raises to $2.25, Button calls, SB calls, BB folds, UTG+1 calls.Flop: 7 A 8 ($9.5, 4 players)SB checks, UTG+1 bets $1.5, Hero raises to $7, Button calls, SB raises to $14, UTG+1 folds, Hero raises all-in $47.8, Button folds, SB calls.Turn: 8 ($113.6, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $113.6)River: K ($113.6, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $113.6)Results:Final pot: $113.6SB Shows Qh AdHero Shows 7d 7s

[The Lobster 0]

Life is good.My leg is about to fall off from playing Rockband 2, I am about to eat some Arby's for dinner, this is my 1000th post, and I am on the good side of variance so far this month ( ).Now I have finished up a bunch of other things going on in my life and I am going to grind the hell out of these last 10 or so days in October.

[NoSup4U 0]

Life is good.My leg is about to fall off from playing Rockband 2, I am about to eat some Arby's for dinner, this is my 1000th post, and I am on the good side of variance so far this month ( ).Now I have finished up a bunch of other things going on in my life and I am going to grind the hell out of these last 10 or so days in October.

Weeeeeeeeeee welcome to the 1000 club! You have 10 days to get to 10K or you're a failure, just remember that ;)Mark

[whatgreatis 0]

Lobster makes sexy graphs for a living.

[The Lobster 0]

Weeeeeeeeeee welcome to the 1000 club! You have 10 days to get to 10K or you're a failure, just remember that ;)Mark

Prop bet? Because I can totally do that...

[NoSup4U 0]

Prop bet? Because I can totally do that...

I don't doubt you at all :)Mark

[Snamuh 0]

For sure. Just saying, he got attacked right away over his initial post, which I didn't think was that bad or off. But I guess its kind of like ExMatt. When you say something reasonable, because of your history of questionable posts, everyone is ready to jump all over you I guess I'm still a little confused. If I understood your argument correctly, if you play less tables you are able to play better (make better decisions) which will decrease variance. But to me, variance has nothing to do with how well you play, and thinking of it like that is what Chen was saying can make you attribute losing to 'bad variance' instead of bad play. I shouldn't be able to 'play better' to decrease variance. Variance is just a function of how close to expected value you end up after you get your money in, over a set of hands. (thats a Mike Caro definition)So in my mind, variance is just applied to when you are putting money in, how much are you making in that pot based on what you expect when you put your money in. (Playing less tables and putting money in 'better' doesn't change variance, it just changes the expected value you have in the hand.) Thats easy to think about when all the money goes in on the flop and you have a set vs a flush, or stuff like that. Its less obvious when you flop a straight draw and peel one off on the flop, miss, and then fold to another bet. Some days we 'run great' and spike everything we draw to on the turn. Other days we 'run bad' and run KK through AA preflop over and over. These are all examples of what I think the variance is in poker.Variance is something we could probably all do without thinking so much about. I suspect everyone else is like me, we think about variance much more in the justifying why we're running bad then we do justifying why we're crushing.Also, I'm definitely not an expert here and if anyone doesn't like how I think about variance or whatever thats cool by me. Its really not too important of an issue for me because I don't think most people in here are losing money because they blame variance too much or anything like that. Like, even if Snamuh and I totally disagree on whatever, its not like this is a material issue in our lives I don't think.Mark

That was my initial statement that I have since ratified. I've now acknowledged the fact that I've ratified it 3 times.

[psujohn 0]

First of all every field co-opts terms from other fields and uses them to mean different things. For example if you look up the definition of monotone (or rainbow) you won't find anything about the number of suits on a flop. These are terms which are adopted from music/art/science and given a meaning in the context of poker which is different but immediately recognizable to everyone who understands the term.This is a good thing. It prevents us from needing to invent a new word for every new concept/situation.So variance to a poker player doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as variance to a statistician. So what. It doesn't mean that poker players are "using the term incorrectly" it just means they're using a poker term and not a statistical term.

If I understood your argument correctly, if you play less tables you are able to play better (make better decisions) which will decrease variance. Variance is just a function of how close to expected value you end up after you get your money in, over a set of hands. (thats a Mike Caro definition)

But how you play can and does affect the variance you can (and do) experience. Break it down to it's simplest form: one hand - you get all-in pre-flop with AK vs 22. You're almost exactly 50/50. But it's impossible for you to run "at expectation" for this one hand. You'll either run at twice your expectation and win it all or you'll run infinitely bad and lose it all.So a player can lower the variance they experience by avoiding coinflips right?Well a player who is playing better by observing better and making fewer mistakes not only increases their winrate but can and should actually decrease their variance. In other words if you're playing and observing better and making fewer mistakes you should have swings of smaller magnitude.So perhaps Snamuh didn't say what he really meant - that at a higher win rate with only 4 tables he should be less likely to experience losing sessions - but I think that what he said is actually correct if only in a small way.Mark's point just goes to the effect of small or large sample sizes. In my single hand example it's impossible to run exactly at expectation. If you had 10 samples you'd likely not run at expectation either. If you have 10,000 samples it's much more likely that you'll run close to expectation and therefor experience "less variance". Therefor the multitabler is less likely to experience variance over a single session. However I'd be very surprised if the better more observant player didn't experience smaller swings over samples with equal numbers of hands.

[cubsfan44 0]

**WARNING POKER CONTENT** Ive been isoing the utg donk alot, SB is definitly capable of squeezing. And UTG donk Is definitly getting annoyed by my constant abuse of him. Button is a multi tabling nit regPoker Stars $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 5 playersThe Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History ConverterBB: $105.55UTG: $45.50Hero (CO): $200.20BTN: $193.75SB: $100.00Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is CO with J J :diamond:UTG calls $1, Hero raises to $5, BTN calls $5, SB raises to $24, 1 fold, UTG raises to $45.50 all in, Hero????

[psujohn 0]

Well ... I think this is a fold.

[cubsfan44 0]

Well .....

Fixed it

[Ex_Matt 0]

I'd say you're in need of a 3rd jack.

[psujohn 0]

Fixed it

Right back atcha

[cubsfan44 0]

Right back atcha

LOL thank you

[RDog 0]

I shouldn't be able to 'play better' to decrease variance. Variance is just a function of how close to expected value you end up after you get your money in, over a set of hands. (thats a Mike Caro definition)So in my mind, variance is just applied to when you are putting money in, how much are you making in that pot based on what you expect when you put your money in.

So what is it called when you and I both play 5 hands and I run KK into AA 5 times and win one and you take AA into KK 5 times and win 4? Cause it sounds like you are trying to say that just based on those hands we are both neutral on the "variance scale" when we obviously are not.Expected value does not equal variance in the full use of the word in the poker world.

[BaseJester 1]

So what is it called when you and I both play 5 hands and I run KK into AA 5 times and win one and you take AA into KK 5 times and win 4? Cause it sounds like you are trying to say that just based on those hands we are both neutral on the "variance scale" when we obviously are not.

I think you're on the right track.We're talking our win rate. That is, expected value per hand or BB/100. If we accept the notion that we have a true win rate, then winning and losing hands for whatever reason creates the variance. I could have positive Sklansky Bucks (which I think is the same thing Mark is explaining) due to having the AA in the AA vs. KK matchup, but still have a negative true win rate. Those match-ups are just another kind of luck.

[RDog 0]

I think you're on the right track.We're talking our win rate. That is, expected value per hand or BB/100. If we accept the notion that we have a true win rate, then winning and losing hands for whatever reason creates the variance. I could have positive Sklansky Bucks (which I think is the same thing Mark is explaining) due to having the AA in the AA vs. KK matchup, but still have a negative true win rate. Those match-ups are just another kind of luck.

LMAO. This is what really annoys me about you. You try to act like you are the wizard behind the curtain. You say "I'm on the right track" like I doubt my words or 2nd guess myself. LOL.

[cubsfan44 0]

LMAO. This is what really annoys me about you. You try to act like you are the wizard behind the curtain. You say "I'm on the right track" like I doubt my words or 2nd guess myself. LOL.

A bit more work over the next couple days and I think we might be able to get you to understand. Atleast youre finally making some progress

[RDog 0]

A bit more work over the next couple days and I think we might be able to get you to understand. Atleast youre finally making some progress

Pray for me please.

[BaseJester 1]

First of all every field co-opts terms from other fields and uses them to mean different things. For example if you look up the definition of monotone (or rainbow) you won't find anything about the number of suits on a flop. These are terms which are adopted from music/art/science and given a meaning in the context of poker which is different but immediately recognizable to everyone who understands the term.This is a good thing. It prevents us from needing to invent a new word for every new concept/situation.So variance to a poker player doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as variance to a statistician. So what. It doesn't mean that poker players are "using the term incorrectly" it just means they're using a poker term and not a statistical term.

Here be dragons.It's OK to use rainbow as a metaphor in poker because the literal meaning doesn't have any applicability to poker. Variance, on the other hand, quite clearly does. It's not like we've run out of ways to combine letters and can't invent new words. How about moothyblag? Or hagblech? Think of the Scrabble players, man. Or wait, how about just "risking"? Why put on the pretense of mathematical precision if there isn't any?

But how you play can and does affect the variance you can (and do) experience. Break it down to it's simplest form: one hand - you get all-in pre-flop with AK vs 22. You're almost exactly 50/50. But it's impossible for you to run "at expectation" for this one hand. You'll either run at twice your expectation and win it all or you'll run infinitely bad and lose it all.So a player can lower the variance they experience by avoiding coinflips right?

Looks OK.

Well a player who is playing better by observing better and making fewer mistakes not only increases their winrate but can and should actually decrease their variance. In other words if you're playing and observing better and making fewer mistakes you should have swings of smaller magnitude.

And now we're ****ed.Let's say we're playing 0.01/0.02 no-max. All of the pots or normal size, except this one hand where the villain open raises to 93 million dollars UTG. It folds to us in the BB and we have JJ. We cover. We look into the villain's soul and discover that he stole Spearment chewing gum from the Osco's when he was 5, spit on his brother when he was 8, has AJ, and likes polka music. This is a +EV situation. So we should call. This call creates a lot of variance. But variance is only bad if it affects our bankroll. Variance != bad. We need a word to describe this situation, and variance as used in math works just fine.

[whatgreatis 0]

Basejester, I was wondering if you do coaching?