solid article

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!

Forum Index > Poker Blogs

nolan Ireland. Apr 13 2008 18:34. Posts 6205

it's not often i come across a poker article that i like so i thought i'd share this one with you guys.

was browsing the second gen coaching sites and came across this article on deucescracked:

http://www.deucescracked.com/articles/373-Thoughts-about-winrates-and-variance

Forget who wrote it, but check it out it's pretty neat.

0 votes

On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid

SpasticInk Sweden. Apr 13 2008 19:14. Posts 6298

interesting. im wondering what a "normal" standard deviation for like nl 100 6-max is ;o

his example of a st dv of 1,8 / hand seems pretty high to me

CrownRoyal United States. Apr 13 2008 19:43. Posts 11386

too mathy for my taste

i read the first few paragraphs though and it seemed ok but pretty much standard?

WHAT IS THIS

TimDawg

United States. Apr 13 2008 20:46. Posts 10197

that article is shit

fuck math

online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball

Babs Australia. Apr 13 2008 20:47. Posts 1178

Is this article basically saying that playing more hands does not reduce your variance because your winrate decreases?

Decent article, worth a read

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napolean Bonaparte

lachlan Australia. Apr 13 2008 20:48. Posts 6991

good article, i only just learnt about Z scores and normal distribution in class 2 weeks ago, pretty interesting

full ring

nolan Ireland. Apr 13 2008 20:59. Posts 6205

it explores the concept.

i'm not saying that i buy it i'm just sasying i think its fresh and well done.

On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid

gawdawaful Canada. Apr 13 2008 23:00. Posts 9012

I'm a bit hesitant to buy into it because he lumped playing more hands with playing more tables (therefore, a decreased winrate) but if that math is done without a decreased winrate (but simply, double, or triple your play time to get the same double or triple hand amount) then I'm almost certain our win % after 2000 or 3000 hands will increase (even if only slightly)

But I do understand the point he is kind of getting at though, in that if your winrate is higher, you're statistically less likely to be down after 1000 hands (or 2k, 3k).
Although, how applicable is this variance calculation to NL?

Interesting read none the less.

Im only good at poker when I run good

lachlan Australia. Apr 13 2008 23:33. Posts 6991

this variance calculation works 100% in NL too

statistics basically can never be wrong, as u get them from the data originally

i think the win rate thing means that for example if u normally get 1PTbb/100 and deviation of 5. then on good days u run at 6 PTBB/100 for example, and on bad days you run at -4 PTBB/100

however if ur a god and run at 10PTBB/100 as ur mean (average) then on a bad day its 5PTBB/100 and good its 15PTBB/100

full ring

Bigbobm United States. Apr 14 2008 00:07. Posts 5512

theoretically this article can be an eye opener to some people who don't quite understand the concept of variance, or probably as a reality check to someone who has been runnin hot for a extended period of time.

Its time to stop thinking like a bitch and think smart like a poker player - ket

Royal_Rumble Germany. Apr 14 2008 00:41. Posts 1760

good article. it tells you what a fucking big impact rake has.

It is 4-5 BB/100!

money won is twice as sweet as money earned.

Yugless

United States. Apr 16 2008 20:30. Posts 7174

too many maths

Baal - look is talking hah.