Swings in runs

moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
I have found that I tend to have big swings in my runs. I have a number of profitable winning sessions in a row followed by a chunk of losing ones. Were I to graph my win-rate, it be less of a steady incline than a wave -- on an incline, though.

Playing is not only profitable but profitable enough to be worth my time overall, and I am relatively pleased with my play and winnings this year.

Still, I have struggled to fully identify WHY my graph looks so wavy. I have a number of theories, but none have settled in.

So, I'm turning to you. Obviously, you can't tell me why :). But, I am hoping that you can offer some questions that I should be sure to be asking myself to begin to understand why this may be happening. Please don't hold any back, even the ones that might seem obvious and that you are sure that I have asked myself already.

Hopefully, if I can come to a better understanding of what causes these swings, then I can begin to formulate a plan for keeping the upswings and reducing or limiting (likely not eliminating) the downswings.

Thank you in advance!

Comments

  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited December 2017
    Well there's just general variance, right?

    So to illustrate something- if you split that graph of your winnings into two separate lines.. one line for your money won with showdown and another into your money won without showdown the two lines would probably look different over the long run

    Your money won without showdown is likely to have ups and downs and be wavy but relative to your money won with showdown line, it will look pretty linear

    At least that's an idea ?
  • porterporter Red Chipper Posts: 313 ✭✭✭
    I read a story once, perhaps apocryphal, that this is how Fedor Holz got to the top. He would stare at his graphs for hours on end, trying to find a signal in the noise. So, you're on the right path, is what I'm trying to say. Next thing you know, you'll be crushing high rollers and pimping mental game apps.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Randomness doesn't usually look very random.

    Since you're interested, you should pull out the old stats book and calculate some autocorrelation-type statistics. See if your chart really is "swingy", in a statistically significant way.

    If it is, you can report back here and we can all speculate on why (I'll get in early with "it's your mental game").
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Brad C wrote: »
    Well there's just general variance, right?

    So to illustrate something- if you split that graph of your winnings into two separate lines.. one line for your money won with showdown and another into your money won without showdown the two lines would probably look different over the long run

    Your money won without showdown is likely to have ups and downs and be wavy but relative to your money won with showdown line, it will look pretty linear

    At least that's an idea ?

    Great idea. I'm a live player, though, so I don't have access to that kind of breakdown. It is certainly the case, though, that showdowns create more variance.

    colldav wrote: »
    Randomness doesn't usually look very random.

    Since you're interested, you should pull out the old stats book and calculate some autocorrelation-type statistics. See if your chart really is "swingy", in a statistically significant way.

    If it is, you can report back here and we can all speculate on why (I'll get in early with "it's your mental game").

    Truthfully, the mental game part is where I started and returned. Balance between confidence and cockiness? Balance between variance and self-defeating?
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Most likely it’s nothing - most people would be surprised how “swingy” a random walk looks.
  • RCP Coach - Fausto ValdezRCP Coach - Fausto Valdez RCP Coach Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    the more exploitative you play, the more swings you will have and vise versa.

    risk vs reward system.
    COACHING NOW AVAILABLE HERE
    MY COACHING REVIEWS HERE
  • eugeniusjreugeniusjr Red Chipper Posts: 427 ✭✭✭
    GTO is the way to peace and smooth riding happiness.

    All of your problems are your own.

    You are out of touch with nature and out of touch with yourself.

    Seek GTO.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Thanks again, everyone.

    After doing some statistical work (thanks @colldav) and being reminded of the greater variance in exploitative play (thanks @Faustovaldez123) along with the earlier comments, I did a little more basic observational work.

    As I've mentioned in other threads, a two buy-in stop-loss for me has been critical (no need to re-examine that here). Indeed, more than HALF my total losses are from sessions where I have re-bought a third or more times. In other words, those 3rd, 4th, and occasional 5th buy-ins represent more than 50% of my losses.

    The other thing that I have noticed is that I look for trends. Just my brain's nature. For instance, if/when I win a series of times playing at a certain hour, then I try to replicate that. Or if/when I win playing a series of shorter sessions, then I try to replicate that. In other words, I had been letting the outcome determine a cause, one that it is almost undeniably false (or, if correct, it's correct for other reasons). Put another way: I'm looking for causes for randomness, and that's never right.

    My two takeaways: (1) I have yet to overcome my inability to be profitable after losing a second buy-in in a session [side note: I CAN take a break for an hour, start a "new" session, and be profitable there]; and (2) I need to stop linking circumstantial/random causes/coincidences with effects (post hoc ergo propter hoc: ).

    Thank you again, everyone!!
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is all a bunch of nonsense.

    There is no correlation in swings between exploitive play and what, is someone really going to say it? Just think about that. (Not doing well? Swingy? just gto that bitch, bro.)

    From a year of seeing your hands, you are one of many players with a high degree of reciprocality in your game. You play "good" poker. You push equity ok. You are up against equivalent strategies. You just wrote that some confused bet on the end of a pot was polarized. You should 100% be swingy - your strategy wants it, like a dog pulling its owner along.

    A great player smoothes things out by winning all sorts of unexpected pots, getting super thin, shutting out opponents when they would otherwise fight, showing up in the right constructions at the right time and a million other things that fight reciprocality and basic equity parlays, the hallmark of those suffering from the TAG's Dilemma, which is as common as the cold here in forum land.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭✭
    The hardest thing with Poker for me is being consistant in my game.

    I think the best players are very consistant with their games, always playing near their A-Game.

    Try to excel every time you hit the felt.
  • Fernando TFernando T Red Chipper Posts: 90 ✭✭
    The hardest thing with Poker for me is being consistant in my game.

    I think the best players are very consistant with their games, always playing near their A-Game.

    Try to excel every time you hit the felt.

    Exelent! This is one of my biggest problems
  • SliverOverlordSliverOverlord Red Chipper Posts: 323 ✭✭✭
    From my live records I’m In The same boat. I go on a 1-3 week where I run like god (35$/hr plus at 1-2) and then have a week or so of sessions that make it all average out to a more reasonable win rate. It’s something that I’ve spend some time reflecting while I’m more in an online mode of grinding. I’ve even found the same thing a few times in my online swings, the first time my roll allowed me to play 100NL, I quickly went on a downswing back to 25NL.

    Here are my thoughts for live:
    Personally, once I string together that win rate, subconsciously I allow myself to feel like I have an larger edge over the field, justify limping things like 64s (for its submarine value vs big hands). Seeing some of the terrible mistakes postflop I see players make just amplify this thought process.

    The second leak that I’ve taken some time to deconstruct is adjusting to different games. I do exceptionally well on these runs of good variance when I can be the action player at the table, forcing people to adjust to me. But sometimes when the table doesn’t need an action guy to blast it open (with big fish or the crazy Russian dude who’s playing any two for any size), I don’t always make the adjustment. I think a big piece of this is losing the confidence in making adjustments to my game once I starting losing pots. I sink back to my standard game, when I need to be adjusting to the fun player.

    Another piece of info for though on this, after listening to S4Ys Jordan Young interview on thinking Poker podcast, it’s made me re think about what happens in the sessions that I start off losing a few pots. Changing your entire preflop strategy to make sure you don’t have as many bluffs is a super good idea. First off, people notice when you lose, and they will call you down light assuming you can be bluffing more often. Especially at 1-2 where the players love to overcompensate, we need to keep our frequencies in check first and foremost. Secondly, we need to be able to have the confidence to run the triple barrel bluffs when it’s the right spot.

    My last leak that may be applicable here that I’ve been really working on plugging is forcing aggression. I’ve noticed that when I start losing, I start barreling for value with hands that should get barreled for value, and there are MUCH more profitable lines to take to maximize vs his likely range. Just taking an few seconds in ranging, specifically on turns and rivers, I’ve found to be a huge spot of improvement when I start slipping, just because of how much of our variance happens on those streets, and how much of our winrate comes from there as well.

    These are my general thoughts on my own struggles with consistency, I’m not sure if you have similar leaks, but I hope this helps.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    From my live records I’m In The same boat. I go on a 1-3 week where I run like god (35$/hr plus at 1-2) and then have a week or so of sessions that make it all average out to a more reasonable win rate. It’s something that I’ve spend some time reflecting while I’m more in an online mode of grinding. I’ve even found the same thing a few times in my online swings, the first time my roll allowed me to play 100NL, I quickly went on a downswing back to 25NL.

    Here are my thoughts for live:
    Personally, once I string together that win rate, subconsciously I allow myself to feel like I have an larger edge over the field, justify limping things like 64s (for its submarine value vs big hands). Seeing some of the terrible mistakes postflop I see players make just amplify this thought process.

    The second leak that I’ve taken some time to deconstruct is adjusting to different games. I do exceptionally well on these runs of good variance when I can be the action player at the table, forcing people to adjust to me. But sometimes when the table doesn’t need an action guy to blast it open (with big fish or the crazy Russian dude who’s playing any two for any size), I don’t always make the adjustment. I think a big piece of this is losing the confidence in making adjustments to my game once I starting losing pots. I sink back to my standard game, when I need to be adjusting to the fun player.

    Another piece of info for though on this, after listening to S4Ys Jordan Young interview on thinking Poker podcast, it’s made me re think about what happens in the sessions that I start off losing a few pots. Changing your entire preflop strategy to make sure you don’t have as many bluffs is a super good idea. First off, people notice when you lose, and they will call you down light assuming you can be bluffing more often. Especially at 1-2 where the players love to overcompensate, we need to keep our frequencies in check first and foremost. Secondly, we need to be able to have the confidence to run the triple barrel bluffs when it’s the right spot.

    My last leak that may be applicable here that I’ve been really working on plugging is forcing aggression. I’ve noticed that when I start losing, I start barreling for value with hands that should get barreled for value, and there are MUCH more profitable lines to take to maximize vs his likely range. Just taking an few seconds in ranging, specifically on turns and rivers, I’ve found to be a huge spot of improvement when I start slipping, just because of how much of our variance happens on those streets, and how much of our winrate comes from there as well.

    These are my general thoughts on my own struggles with consistency, I’m not sure if you have similar leaks, but I hope this helps.

    I've experienced the same. Some of it comes down to huge pots though. Like when I'm running good I win that 4 way 2k pot where I'm on a straight and flush draw.

    but yeah the game has its ups and downs for sure.

    I was running at like 45/hour at 1/3 lol but now with a more reasonable sample size it's come down to like 25 and will continue to drop. A lot of this also comes from like 5-6 hour sessions that end with no gain or loss or maybe down a couple hundred. That's a huge hit to your hourly if you only have like 400 hours.

    But the bigger issue for me is that I have no real idea what I'm doing so it's all just guessing a lot of the time for me lol which is why I'm playing more online to learn where the swings don't matter.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Thank you, @SliverOverlord. Very helpful!!
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭✭
    To restate what i wrote i would simply say instead, Strive for Consistency in Strategy Execution.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file