Losses in a single session (Limit HE)? |
|
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:32 am GMT by pm_french
Normally play on NL (micro - $25) where when you lose the lot this can be down to a single bad beat or play however, obviously, in Limit, if you are down a lot then this is usually because you have played poorly. I've just started playing 0.50/1 limit (on Party) and in the first few sessions was doing OK however last night, in a four hour session (about 250 hands) I lost 25xbig bet in total (sat down with $30 and left with $5). I was pretty pee'd off with myself afterwards as I knew exactly what was going wrong (another player at the table actually passed a comment saying he had me pegged for a maniac which is usually the opposite to how I play).
In general (ignoring some of the classic mistakes I was making), how many big bets might you expect to lose (if at all) in a session if luck was not on your side (examples being getting the high cards and not pairing, not flopping your set, no connection with the flop when playing your suited connectors etc). Is 25 big bets normal or would this be considered quite a bit loss?
FYI (and some self flailing) a lot of the cash I felt was lost:
A - Making a couple of crappy folds on the river to a single bet into a large pot when I actually thought I might be ahead.
B - As the table was quite tight (only 3-4 seeing the flop) I was trying to steal too much.
C - As I didn't feel I was getting the right odds to play the suited connectors in the usual manner, I was getting cocky with them and playing them far too aggressively (trying to force people off cards rather than getting the goods).
D - I never like opening with a limp in early/mid so I have cards I want to play I'll usually raise. If someone re-raised and it wasn't capped then I'd normally call one last small bet. I'd miss the flop and have to fold.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:00 am GMT by tame_deuces
| pm_french wrote: | | obviously, in Limit, if you are down a lot then this is usually because you have played poorly. |
This is not true.
Limit has higher variance than no limit, simply because it is more common to have showdowns/play beyond the flop, hence hands will get busted more often (both you and your opponent's). Results therefore vary more.
If the stakes are comparable in terms of average potsize you will therefore tend to swing much more in terms of $$ in a FL game. (A possible exception applies in exceptionally loose and aggressive NL games, but most games people will encounter are not like that at all).
A 25 big bet swing is completely standard, and I would say a swing below 100 big bets should not thought of as uncommon in the least and even bigger swings are far from uncommon.
I've played shorthanded aggresive live limit games where I have been in the hole for 50-70 big bets and back to breakeven before the session ended. And since that is live, that is over a very short span of hands.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:41 am GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | Limit has higher variance than no limit, simply because it is more common to have showdowns/play beyond the flop, hence hands will get busted more often (both you and your opponent's). Results therefore vary more. |
I don't agree that limit has higher variance than NL. Variance (IMO) has little to do with how many showdowns you have and much more to do with your general playing style. Since variance is an absolute #, it doesn't need multiple hands to get busted to be large. So, I would argue that overall variance in NL is higher (and in some cases much higher), assuming we are talking about $$'s won/lost varaince over a given time period.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:41 am GMT by zinn0
The most I have ever lost in a limit session was 65BB's over 1500 hands. As Tame pointed out, having a big losing session doesn't equal poor play all the time.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:55 am GMT by supafrey
| shorn7 wrote: | | Quote: | | Limit has higher variance than no limit, simply because it is more common to have showdowns/play beyond the flop, hence hands will get busted more often (both you and your opponent's). Results therefore vary more. |
I don't agree that limit has higher variance than NL. Variance (IMO) has little to do with how many showdowns you have and much more to do with your general playing style. Since variance is an absolute #, it doesn't need multiple hands to get busted to be large. So, I would argue that overall variance in NL is higher (and in some cases much higher), assuming we are talking about $$'s won/lost varaince over a given time period. |
Yeah but the 40-100bb downswings in limit (i had those constantly) are technically supposed to amount to 40-100 hours of normal winning rate. Play bad for an hour and you haveta spend a week making it up - definitely higher variance in fl.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:23 am GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | Yeah but the 40-100bb downswings in limit (i had those constantly) are technically supposed to amount to 40-100 hours of normal winning rate. Play bad for an hour and you haveta spend a week making it up - definitely higher variance in fl. |
It depends what you are applying variance to IMO. In terms of actual dollar variance, I don't think this is the case as you can just as easily sit down the next day and have a +40-100 BB session as well. We have al had those too. But, overall time variance to in general make up a loss? No question that in FL this is higher.
I think we essentially agree here; we are just saying it in a different way.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:38 am GMT by supafrey
people also never fold because their draws usually have more value..
that and because fl is stupid and noone folds, duh.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:54 am GMT by Phil14312
I played some really sharp poker two nights ago and ended down -40BBs a 6/12. It happens, frequently. I had AK, AK, AQ, AJ, AJ, AJ, AT, AT, pocket KKs 5 times and won only w/ kings twice. In no limit I would have been able to win at least a few of these pots.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:14 pm GMT by pm_french
My original post looks a bit pointless now to be honest but at least has generated some discussion. I was obviously worried about nothing though I have beat myself up a bit today as my losses though I primarily attribute to being a fool.
If the recommended bank roll is 200-300X Big bet then, though being considered quite natural, taking a 40BB hit in a single sesh is quite a big smack really isn't it?
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:29 pm GMT by supafrey
Yes.
In NL it's very similar. I know tons of players that think they're "fine" with 10-20 buyins... then a short downswing of 4-5 buyins (which can happen in an hour, frankly) leaves their roll crippled and their knees shaking.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:44 pm GMT by aaronw
I think FL has more variance. I think that in NL the really good players usually have a bigger edge than and equally good FL player would have. And I am pretty sure that if you have a bigger edge in the game, your variance will be less...
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:05 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Quote: | | Limit has higher variance than no limit... |
This may or may not be true depending on how you play.
Comparing variance of limit to no limit by itself is meaningless. The idea come from some coefficient's name that I can't remember now. This coefficient measures SDper100/WRper100. Note that SD is the square root of variance. This can also be thought of as the luck to skill ratio of a game.
*Note that this number is dependent on number of hands. SDper100/WRper100 = 10*(SDper10,000/WRper10,000). As you may have guessed this number decreases as sample size increases. But 100 hands (for online) or 1 hour (for live) is the typical standard of measure. Note that altering the standard of measure would not alter the %difference between FL and NL.
For someone who is much more skilled than his opponents this number will be larger for FL than NL. Thus there's more variance in FL than NL.
For someone who plays FL better than NL that isn't necessarily true.
This number is also very important for two reasons. It determines how large one's bankroll must be. It also determines how long games will last. There are problems when this number becomes too large or too small. If the number is too large there is too much luck involved in the game. A player whose true win is small will need an extrememly large bankroll to handle swings. If the number is too small bad players will lose too frequently and too quickly. The losers quit or find a new game and the game dies out.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:53 pm GMT by General Sal
I once lost $400 at 4/8 Limit Hold em at a casino.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:34 pm GMT by MasterShake
| General Sal wrote: | | I once lost $400 at 4/8 Limit Hold em at a casino. |
I once lost my self respect to a 48 year old woman behind a casino.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:52 pm GMT by snoogins47
This argument is stupid unless we all work from the same definition of 'variance.' Which won't happen. This is a poker forum... that means variance isn't formulas, variance isn't anything, variance is "WHICH GAME HAS ME GET SCREWED ON THE RIVER LESS LAWL" but whatever.
Numbers = pulled out of ass.
(in NL, I"m using 'bb' in the pokertracker vein: two big blinds... one 'big bet.' it just makes the comparisons easier.)
Take a FL winner with a SD of 16bb/100 and a winrate of 1bb/100.
Take a NL winner with a SD of 21bb/100 and a winrate of 7bb/100
I don't know how reasonable the numbers really are here, though i know they're pretty 'regular' on the FL side of life... but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the NL player has bigger swings, but he's got a better chance of being ahead after 100 hands than the FL player.
Basically, just wrap your head around the fact that there's absolutely nothing special about "0." That's one of the primary problems people have in discussions of this nature.
|
|
