sorry, but this is crap
ffs, use logic, do you really think nosebleed players give up their small edges to avoid variance? sure they do, because their edge against 4 top players and a semi fish is too high already... right?
the coin flipping thing is ok for begginers, though, i liked it.
Is it not a mixture of both thinkings aka I'm happy to raise to increase fold equity when feel it is profitable and I'm also happy to get it in with 60/40 52/48 etc?
Thanks for posting this. Someone gave me this link after I wrote something like this on my blog (I thought about translating it to English but...well, it's a very big post...) and I can see it's more or less the same, specially the 60% vs 40% part.
The big question would be "when should we be ready to gamble in 60% vs 40%? When it's less than half of our stack? When it's maximum 30% of our stack? When we are far away from prizes? When we are on a final table? Never?
I don't think there is an easy answer for this. However, in cash games, all these decisions become easier.
Great post! Thanks! ♠_cool:
Originally posted by brobz
I could toss a coin 1000 times and I would NOT expect to hit 500 heads and 500 tails. In fact, with such a small sample I would expect to hit somewhere between 100:900 on either side of the possibility curve. If was to perform this same experiment 1000 times and toss a total of one million coins, I would expect APPROXIMATELY half of those experiments to come out in favour of one side and half of the other. Within these 1000 toss samples I would expect to see some massive swings of 950:50 down to some of almost exactly 500:500.
You made a mistake here.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Originally posted by Anger86
Originally posted by brobz
I could toss a coin 1000 times and I would NOT expect to hit 500 heads and 500 tails. In fact, with such a small sample I would expect to hit somewhere between 100:900 on either side of the possibility curve. If was to perform this same experiment 1000 times and toss a total of one million coins, I would expect APPROXIMATELY half of those experiments to come out in favour of one side and half of the other. Within these 1000 toss samples I would expect to see some massive swings of 950:50 down to some of almost exactly 500:500.
You made a mistake here.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Thanks for that, 'cause that took me to a great reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
♠_cool:
Originally posted by w34z3l
Tbh I don't feel like I've truly won unless I get the money in bad.
♦ ♦ ♦ True story
Originally posted by PokerPPP
Originally posted by w34z3l
Tbh I don't feel like I've truly won unless I get the money in bad.♦ ♦ ♦ True story
♦
Very good article! Nice to read it after yesterdays one of the unluckiest or even unluckiest tournament in my short poker career. 5 bad beats on 300 hands. This is really motivational. 
Varianca e simples, Quem erra menos chega mais longe.
Aparti do momento que voce comeca a imaginar outras possibilidades saiba que voce esta procurando o material errado para estudo.
Originally posted by darkpenance0
I do agree with most of the points made, I'm a player who would rather not go to showdown if it can be avoided for the very reasons mentioned, you lose control when it goes to showdown and I always like to be in control.It sucks but that's just the way it is.
The most certain way to avoid going to showdown is to fold.
Not as certain, but more profitable, it so get your opponent to fold.
They will respect your raises, if you fold enough so that your raises have meaning.
This is why we play "tight-aggressive". When we must show down, we show a good hand.
Therefore, when we raise a river, or re-raise a turn, we get folds.
When we don't get folds, we can fold ourselves -- if necessary.
good discussion!
VS
So if I understand correctly , the moral of the story is, avoid showdowns where possible.
That is something that has always troubled me , these poker statistics are based on millions of hands, but are not quite as accurate in the short term. I think of them like a kite which might be gaining height but the tail is flapping and flipping all over the show. If short term statistics were available perhaps they may be more useful , statistics for example of 1000000 hands but taken as a comparison of the results of 1000 lots of 1000 hands.
Hey tmannie,
Short term results are heavily influenced by variance as you will see from the below screenshots:
1,000 hands x 20
1,000,000 hands x 20
Key figures to take out of this are:
Even as a +5BB/100h player, you have only a 57.8338% chance of being in a profitable situation and the standard deviation you are facing is 25.3BBs/100h over a 1,000 hand sample. Variance is very noticeable. A bit like a kite tail flapping in the wind.
On the other hand, you have a 100% chance of being profitable and the standard deviation is only 0.8BB/100h over a 1,000,000 hand sample. A bit like a jet ascending.
This is why low sample sizes are so untrustworthy.
Regards
Laz
wow this is alot of info not that im any good at the math or anything but i think some players will lose no matter what
win 0:1000
