Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Discuss ring game approaches and strategies here

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:41 pm

i'll try to keep things simple.

now let's say you have 200 dollars invested in the pot. let's take extreme cases and say you either run it 5 times or run it once. Say your bankroll is 2000 dollars.

Risk of ruin increases as the amount of money vested in a single bet compared to your total bankroll increases. By running it 5 times, you thus reduce your risk of ruin.

running it once : ratio = 200/2000 = 1/10

running it 5 times : you are now essentially playing 5 games with the exact same odds. Your risk of ruin is thus about a fifth of what it would have been if you ran it once.


As I've mentioned in my blackjack example, it's better to play 5 $10 hands than to play one $50 hand.


edit: just an added on thought regarding what alex said...

"Risk of ruin is about difference in stack sizes/bankrolls and how it affects one's probability of busting out broke. In the case of running it a number of times, both players are all-in and thus their "stack sizes" for that one hand are essentially the same. Therefore, in that light, I do not see how the risk of ruin plays a part in this."

If this is the only problem you have with the idea, it is easily resolved. You see, you're betting your entire stack on a single gamble if you run it once. But if you run it 5 times, you are essentially betting only 1/5 of your stack every time you run it. Even if you discard the whole idea of risk of ruin, Leslie's favorite law of very large numbers should tell you that is the better alternative. risk of ruin has nothing to do with your opponent. An even simpler illustration of this problem is...let's ultra simplify it and pretend our stack is our bankroll. It becomes blatantly obvious now that running it 5 times is never to your disadvantage. Your risk of ruin is huge otherwise. Once you understand this, zoom out into the big picture and look at your stack as a function of your bankroll. Everytime you bust out(ruin) your stack, your bankroll hurts. Why would you want to increase the chances of your bankroll hurting? Looking at it as a two tier process(multiple ruins of your stack will lead to eventual ruin of your bankroll), you can see why it's always advantageous to keep the risk of ruin of your stack itself to a minimum.

Running it once is always a gamble. Running to infinity and running once is the difference between math and gambling. Personally, I choose to move closer to the math side.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby felixleong » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:41 pm

LMAO!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
felixleong
Great White Shark
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:02 pm
Medals: 4
Long Jie Participant (1) 1000 posts (1) Article Contributor (1) Helpful Kaki (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:03 pm

did i get something wrong?
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:32 pm

1) this is exactly the misconception i've been trying to debunk. The truth is, you will never reach your "long run". Proper BR management is important, but that's not it's real purpose. Proper BR management forces you to bet a small enough portion of your entire bankroll that your risk of ruin is small. If you are a profitable player, this allows you to take the swings more readily(but never removes the risk of going bust).




Is that so? truth of never reaching the long run ? Yes in strict language terms the long one is a metaphor, one that can never be realized or proven. However I can safely say that coupled with my bankroll management, I am a long-term winner at the stakes I play online. In practical sense, if in X number of significant hands you have a Y winrate, though it gives a fair reflection of your pass results and doesnt tell you what the future is, it nonetheless is a fair reflection of your "long-run" skill and your potential money making.

I like my 130k hands graph. Its not considered long run, but looking at the steady growth of my profits and bankroll does imply something about the long run.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Pokerkaki Ads

Postby Pokerkaki Ads

Pokerkaki Ads
Shameless Advertising to keep this site alive

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:02 pm

vaevictis wrote:
1) this is exactly the misconception i've been trying to debunk. The truth is, you will never reach your "long run". Proper BR management is important, but that's not it's real purpose. Proper BR management forces you to bet a small enough portion of your entire bankroll that your risk of ruin is small. If you are a profitable player, this allows you to take the swings more readily(but never removes the risk of going bust).




Is that so? truth of never reaching the long run ? Yes in strict language terms the long one is a metaphor, one that can never be realized or proven. However I can safely say that coupled with my bankroll management, I am a long-term winner at the stakes I play online. In practical sense, if in X number of significant hands you have a Y winrate, though it gives a fair reflection of your pass results and doesnt tell you what the future is, it nonetheless is a fair reflection of your "long-run" skill and your potential money making.

I like my 130k hands graph. Its not considered long run, but looking at the steady growth of my profits and bankroll does imply something about the long run.



begging the question.
You can't have an infinite loop of results proving the point that generates the results.

I have no doubt that you are a winning player. Neither does the theory say you aren't. What you have to understand is that the main barrier against you ever achieving the long run is the fact that no matter how good your bankroll management is, the risk of you going bust is always >0%, regardless of how high your equity is per hand played. I don't care how big your bankroll is, or how small stakes you play. You can still go busto.

In the real long run, any game you play with a >$0 expectancy is an arbitrage. Because in infinite time, you are guaranteed the result. And regarding your last statement, you are correct that your sample size implies you are a winner in the long run. Again, no one is disputing that. The problem is, you'll NEVER get to the long run.

Everytime you go all in with Aces against Kings, let's say you're 80% favourite. Do not be confused by the common wisdom that as long as you keep shoving here with aces against kings, you'll end up ahead in the long run. That assumes that your bet is always the same, or averages to a similar value. If you lose a shove of 200k on aces over kings, it would take you a long time just to break even with shoves of $100. For you to actually start the count to the infinite long run, you'll need to shove 200k exactly every time. A little extreme, but hat's why the you are further away from the long run than you think. You played 130k hands, but were all similar hands played for a similar pot size?

Again, this is all theory, which tragically always appear to be wrong in the face of "real results". But before you debunk this, remember it was common sense once that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones. After all, does a feather not fall slower than a cannon ball?

Again, because I feel I have ruffled your feathers here...I am not disputing that you are a winning player. Still, the fact that half your second paragraph contradicts itself is perhaps a tell that you aren't entirely certain of where you stand on this subject.


how remiss of me, i forgot to answer your original question
"Is that so? truth of never reaching the long run ? "

yes
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:19 pm

Yep as I said, the long run is something that is infinitely far, something that we don't ever reach.

However, do i need to take note of this metaphorical fact (that its impossible to reach) in my poker games, the answer is no. I'm not interested in the theory of language in defining long run, I'm more interested in the process of getting there. Poker players use the term long run to denote a general notion of "over time", and not "a specific end of time". We can do this all day, debating on this, but its pointless in the contextual sense I am talking about.

All i know is that, in order to know if you are a winning player, you simply gotta log hands. In this process of getting into the long run, it is when a player with the proper skill sets can show a net profit.
In terms of absolute money, yes if i lose a flip for AA vs KK for 200k dollars, obviously ill be decimated and my long run of making "absolute money" will get there longer.
And yes, the 130k hands are at progressive stakes with significant hand samples for each, and I do not take crazy shots just to skew my long run potential.

I don't need to get to the long run, I just need to keep running and keep playing my best, and upon reflection of past results, it does show money will follow as long as u play good. Short term variation in results is insignificant.

An advice out there for starting players, it is important for you to know you are capable of beating a limit for a significant sample before you move up. This lets you know you have the ability to grind out the money should you not do well at higher stakes, or that your shots failed.

I believe there are more local online grinders who put in so much more hands than me and show a net "metaphoric long run" profit. Especially those highstakes limit grinders that not many know of.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:41 pm

vaevictis wrote:Yep as I said, the long run is something that is infinitely far, something that we don't ever reach.

However, do i need to take note of this metaphorical fact in my poker games, the answer is no.

All i know is that, in order to know if you are a winning player, you simply gotta log hands. In this process of getting into the long run, it is when a player with the proper skill sets can show a net profit.


I don't need to get to the long run, I just need to keep running and keep playing my best, and upon reflection of past results, it does show money will follow as long as u play good. Short term results is insignificant.


mmm...i classify people like you as those who know the blinders are there, but prefer to pretend they're not.

I'm not attacking the way you play. I can see why you may feel uncomfortable with what i'm saying, because it basically implies you could lose all our money even if you played exactly as you have been playing.

You're right that it's not a matter of choice, whether you can get to the long run. It is just impossible. And no, you don't have to take note of that fact when you're playing in a game. But it is a stupid man who does not take the chance to run it multiple times when given the choice simply because he doesn't believe in the "metaphorical" long run. Yes leslie, I do remember the time you thanked me for letting you run the deck when I had aces over your kings. You did not understand this concept then, and I'm hoping you do now.

Like i said, what you're doing now is perfectly fine. But why reject the possibility of reducing risk when it's presented to you? It is a little strange how you have the schizophrenic desire of both ignoring the long run and targeting for it.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:58 pm

Right. You were right about the instance about the kings vs aces hands. And my thanks to you was indeed genuine back then.

I leave it to readers to evaluate the value of practical advice both of us have put up.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:18 am

vaevictis wrote:Right. You were right about the instance about the kings vs aces hands. And my thanks to you was indeed genuine back then.

I leave it to readers to evaluate the value of practical advice both of us have put up.


erm my point was that you didn't need to thank me coz i wasn't doing you any favors.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby Lo0o0o0n » Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:18 am

ohboy wrote:i'll try to keep things simple.

now let's say you have 200 dollars invested in the pot. let's take extreme cases and say you either run it 5 times or run it once. Say your bankroll is 2000 dollars.

Risk of ruin increases as the amount of money vested in a single bet compared to your total bankroll increases. By running it 5 times, you thus reduce your risk of ruin.

running it once : ratio = 200/2000 = 1/10

running it 5 times : you are now essentially playing 5 games with the exact same odds. Your risk of ruin is thus about a fifth of what it would have been if you ran it once.


As I've mentioned in my blackjack example, it's better to play 5 $10 hands than to play one $50 hand.


edit: just an added on thought regarding what alex said...

"Risk of ruin is about difference in stack sizes/bankrolls and how it affects one's probability of busting out broke. In the case of running it a number of times, both players are all-in and thus their "stack sizes" for that one hand are essentially the same. Therefore, in that light, I do not see how the risk of ruin plays a part in this."

If this is the only problem you have with the idea, it is easily resolved. You see, you're betting your entire stack on a single gamble if you run it once. But if you run it 5 times, you are essentially betting only 1/5 of your stack every time you run it. Even if you discard the whole idea of risk of ruin, Leslie's favorite law of very large numbers should tell you that is the better alternative. risk of ruin has nothing to do with your opponent. An even simpler illustration of this problem is...let's ultra simplify it and pretend our stack is our bankroll. It becomes blatantly obvious now that running it 5 times is never to your disadvantage. Your risk of ruin is huge otherwise. Once you understand this, zoom out into the big picture and look at your stack as a function of your bankroll. Everytime you bust out(ruin) your stack, your bankroll hurts. Why would you want to increase the chances of your bankroll hurting? Looking at it as a two tier process(multiple ruins of your stack will lead to eventual ruin of your bankroll), you can see why it's always advantageous to keep the risk of ruin of your stack itself to a minimum.

Running it once is always a gamble. Running to infinity and running once is the difference between math and gambling. Personally, I choose to move closer to the math side.



Ohboy...I totally understand and agree that running it more times is better...but...the reason for this is because of the fact ur taking a bigger sample size and thus giving probability a chance to bring us closer to our expected result. I think it has nothing to do with the stack sizes of the 2 players. And from what i know...the risk of ruin talks abt how a big stack size go through bad variance w/o going bust while a small stack cannot. So...if A has $2000 and B has $500...and B goes all in...A calls....why does the remaining stack of $1500 of A play any part in deciding who has an edge in the hand?

Thats what im trying to say...that running it more...definitely is better...but im not quite sure...risk of ruin is the way to explain why....law of very large numbers fits to a T here...
User avatar
Lo0o0o0n
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:11 am
Medals: 7
Long Jie Participant (1) Genting Poker Tournament (2) Macau Cup Participant (2) APPT Participant (1) Helpful Kaki (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:30 am

perhaps if you looked at it from this point of view

when you play against a smaller stack opponent, your stack size is exactly the same as him. Stack size in a heads-up situation sinks to the lowest common denominator.

The amount of money you risk in that one hand is a function of your stack, which in turn is a function of your bankroll. As long as there is risk to the money you put in the pot(opponent not drawing dead), your bankroll is in danger in the long run(if you always shove with that hand).

Diversifying is the only way to reduce risk while keeping EV the same. It's been proven for ages. Proper bankroll management banks uses the diversification principle. There is thus no rational reason why one would practice bankroll management, and ignore chances for further diversification of investment.


Once again, I repeat...this is a purely theoretical discussion. In all likeness, those with good bankroll management will not go bust. This is simply a reminder that it is not impossible to go bust, and running multiple times every time you get the chance will increase those chances of survival.

In any case, this will be my last word on the subject. I've noticed a few terminological errors on my part in the previous posts, and i'm going to work on editing them out.(I've used gambler's ruin and risk of ruin interchangably, and they are not exactly the same) They may have caused the confusion. If I think of anything else to say, I'll add a new thread or blog it. This is leslie's show and I've long overstayed my welcome. Feel free to priv msg me if you have any further thoughts. I love theoretical discussions of this nature.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby felixleong » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:55 am

Luck doesn't matter that much
Just play our Poker la~ hahahaha
User avatar
felixleong
Great White Shark
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:02 pm
Medals: 4
Long Jie Participant (1) 1000 posts (1) Article Contributor (1) Helpful Kaki (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby newbie » Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:01 pm

haha running pocket 10s vs AQs 4 times still didnt help me
newbie
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:37 pm
Medals: 1
Chatterbox - Bigga Mouth~ (1)

Pokerkaki Ads

Postby Pokerkaki Ads

Pokerkaki Ads
Shameless Advertising to keep this site alive

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:18 am

yeah

it's sick, considering how close 4 is to infinity
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cash Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 

Recent Posts

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner

Site

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner