[Closed] my major leak

Playing 9 tables.

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Playing 9 tables.

thats your biggest leak!
jeez you must be good

Playing 24 tables.

Well, for me it looks like the biggest one because 9tabling shorthanded games = autopilot = bad.

Sure i have technical leaks, but those are much more easy to fix when you identify them.

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well, for me it looks like the biggest one because 9tabling shorthanded games = autopilot = bad.

Sure i have technical leaks, but those are much more easy to fix when you identify them.

I had a go at SH games and have to say it is absolutely wild! lol

I can play 9 FR games easily but SH requires more attention and is too swingy.

My elephant graph goes mad when I play SH lol

Can I ask you guys what bb/100 rate you are acheiving

Obviously it will be low since your stakes are higher and harder!

Well for FR players it may look wild, but you get used to it pretty quickly and when it happens, fullring gets too boring to play.

I tried to play FR few months ago and ended up 16 tabling BSS. ♦

As for winrates it's very dificult question to answer because i didn't play enough hands at any stakes i played to identify my winrate, and also since i work on my game winrate also changes.

The problem with determining winrates is that you can run bad or good for very long periods of time in NLHE.

Cool graph, eh?

Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

Oh and btw, i just finished 4 tabling session and actually enjoyed it, so i guess i'm on my way to fixing this leak.

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well for FR players it may look wild, but you get used to it pretty quickly and when it happens, fullring gets too boring to play.

I tried to play FR few months ago and ended up 16 tabling BSS. ♦

As for winrates it's very dificult question to answer because i didn't play enough hands at any stakes i played to identify my winrate, and also since i work on my game winrate also changes.

The problem with determining winrates is that you can run bad or good for very long periods of time in NLHE.

Cool graph, eh?

Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

Oh and btw, i just finished 4 tabling session and actually enjoyed it, so i guess i'm on my way to fixing this leak.

interesting graph, reminds me of an economic concept called the 'random walk' and stochastic processes (by my interpretation).

That graph also makes me doubt myself now since I have the 'durrrr' line lol.

Could I please ask where you found this idea from? I would like to read an article about it but it is quite hard to google.

Glad you enjoyed your session!

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

I don't get it =/

Originally posted by TheBrood

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

I don't get it =/

this is my understanding:

there is say 60% chance person A wins overall and same 60% for person B.

Now this obviously means both A and B should both be winners in the long run.

Now if we capture a small sample of a VERY large sample of their results, we should see hopefully they do win 60% of the time (perhaps equating to the 10bb rate)

But their routes to this balance will obviously be different.

Ask Person A to flip a coin 1000 times and same for B, they should both have roughly equal Heads and Tails at the end but that doesn't mean they will take the same path. e.g HTHTHTHT = HHHHTTTT in terms of overall result but have different routes.

As is with this case, the past would not affect the future (unless we count long playing sessions as detrimental but we will neglect this).

So A and B could be following the same 'rules' but their 'random walk' could be very different. Only in the VERY VERY long run would they perhaps acheive the same 10bb or 60%.

Which is why sample size is so important.

If you made it right, the graph is very interesting. I'll try to make my own because i feel that at 100.000 hands results should be very close.

My major leaks: playing like i'm braindead when i'm bored/tired and incapacity to play well when i'm raised or some dude massively overbets.

folding overpairs when it is clear my opponnents have set. for example folding AA on a 694 board.
Another is maybe not being able to fold KK preflop. I have lost sooo many BI like this

I admit it, I'm a calling station. I just can't get away. that's probably my biggest leak.

Originally posted by RahXephon1
I admit it, I'm a calling station. I just can't get away. that's probably my biggest leak.

ok... that's a rather BIG leak

Yeah i remembered... isn't there a very simple way to calculate how much variance should you expect? You can calculate standard deviation (statistics). It will not be me because i don't remember how to do it and i don't want to kill my brain...

Anyway, made a little program, i think it's rigged lol. It should generate about 3.35 BB/100 but it gets around 1.8 and can't explain why so i won't post it yet. If you'll take my word for it (and if i wrote it well, which i doubt) things stay this way (10 simulations for each sample... humanly speaking it follows the difference between the luckiest and unluckiest from 10 people doing the same thing)

Over a 1K sample: best 5.5bb, worst -2.2bb
Over a 10k sample: best 2,39bb worst 0.41bb
Over a 100k sample: best 2,369bb worst 1,357bb
Over a 1M sample: best 1,969bb worst 1,7516bb. So i guess what they do is worth about 1.8bb/100 hands. It's so strange, even in a million hands (!!!) you get a + or - of 0.1bb/100hands. At least over the recommended 20k sample you can't expect to have a deviation from your real win rate bigger than 1.5bb/100hands. You have like 0.5?! Oupsyy...

And in case you wonder how i got the numbers, it's a process like this: it's a 30% chance of winning 10bb, a 20% of winning 0bb, 5% chance of losing -15bb etc... (God i am really that bored?)

Originally posted by shortfuse

Originally posted by TheBrood

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

I don't get it =/

this is my understanding:

there is say 60% chance person A wins overall and same 60% for person B.

Now this obviously means both A and B should both be winners in the long run.

Now if we capture a small sample of a VERY large sample of their results, we should see hopefully they do win 60% of the time (perhaps equating to the 10bb rate)

But their routes to this balance will obviously be different.

Ask Person A to flip a coin 1000 times and same for B, they should both have roughly equal Heads and Tails at the end but that doesn't mean they will take the same path. e.g HTHTHTHT = HHHHTTTT in terms of overall result but have different routes.

As is with this case, the past would not affect the future (unless we count long playing sessions as detrimental but we will neglect this).

So A and B could be following the same 'rules' but their 'random walk' could be very different. Only in the VERY VERY long run would they perhaps acheive the same 10bb or 60%.

Which is why sample size is so important.

I understand they will take different paths but they should end up at nearly the same spot after a lot of hands.

shortfuse: I don't know what articles should i recommend, it's just variance of NLHE.

andreibalint: programs like HEM displays your SD. Here is cool program to play with.

TheBrood: Long run is way longer than 100k hands.

Originally posted by RahXephon1
I admit it, I'm a calling station. I just can't get away. that's probably my biggest leak.

#2

I need to fold more often.

Originally posted by TheBrood

Originally posted by shortfuse

Originally posted by TheBrood

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Well it's simulated results of two players with exactly same 10bb/100 winrate.
As you may see the guy with green line would probably hate life after those 100k hands, while another player probably would think he's the next durrrr.

I don't get it =/

this is my understanding:

there is say 60% chance person A wins overall and same 60% for person B.

Now this obviously means both A and B should both be winners in the long run.

Now if we capture a small sample of a VERY large sample of their results, we should see hopefully they do win 60% of the time (perhaps equating to the 10bb rate)

But their routes to this balance will obviously be different.

Ask Person A to flip a coin 1000 times and same for B, they should both have roughly equal Heads and Tails at the end but that doesn't mean they will take the same path. e.g HTHTHTHT = HHHHTTTT in terms of overall result but have different routes.

As is with this case, the past would not affect the future (unless we count long playing sessions as detrimental but we will neglect this).

So A and B could be following the same 'rules' but their 'random walk' could be very different. Only in the VERY VERY long run would they perhaps acheive the same 10bb or 60%.

Which is why sample size is so important.

I understand they will take different paths but they should end up at nearly the same spot after a lot of hands.

here is the issue: how big is BIG?

Are talking 10k? 100k? 1bn?

Mathematically speaking they would end up exactly the same after inifinite hands...

but this is just theoretical.

Perhaps now you have a better insight as to the kind of numbers of samples are needed for ''acurrate'' and ''reliable'' results to go by.

I dont understand how its possible that both the players in the graph can have the same winrate after the same amount of hands at the same limit. Logic tells me they should end up at the same exact point in the graph no?