Downswings at micro cash

shakinaces

I've been getting battered lately, must be a good 40-50 BI down at NL10 in 4-5 weeks, so try and stop doing my own head in I wanted to ask:

Is there such a thing as downswings at micro cash?

Should it be the case that, if you are a winning player at this level, the skill gap should mean that it should be a rarity to drop more than a handful of BIs before you get back winning? 

If that sort of downswing is standard, which I'm not convinced it is, then happy(ish) days, I can carry on as I am and figure to get back on an upswing imminently.

But if it's not...

Where do you even start with stopping the rot?

The two questions are linked a bit, I'm looking back over hand histories and am obviously viewing endless coolers and beats.  But if it's not possible to play well and see such a downswing at these levels, there must be some big holes (away from the times I'm stacking off) that have somehow appeared over and above a short-term run of bad luck.

While I'm sure some regs will have built effective ways to outplay me over the past year, I table select well enough to avoid them as much as possible, so I'd be surprised if it's purely a case of everybody (reg and rec) working out how to beat me.

Not that I've stood still anyway, I've been flicking through strat articles / vids and trying to find ways to plug leaks.

I just have the feeling that as fast as I plug a leak, even bigger holes appear for my money to fall through.

Any (reasonable) suggestions welcomed...

craigcu12

this would be an interesting forum thread for myself too, i've now lost £100 in just one day of nl4, what i'm starting to question now is just how much value I should give premium pairs post flop especially when sitting out of position.

F_Ivanovic

The bigger your true winrate, the less variance will kick you in the butt. If your true winrate is very high in Micro stakes games (say 10bb/100 hands) then a 50BI downswing would be very unlikely. If however your true winrate was only 1 or 2bb per 100 hands then a 50BI downswing at some point will be a lot more likely. 

How many tables are you currently playing? One way to stop the downswing can be to reduce the number of tables since this should (in theory) increase your winrate. I still think most people in poker play way too many tables and it affects your ability to learn as you are playing as well as trying to be creative whilst playing because you don't have enough time to think properly per hand - as such, you get stuck in a very abc style.

stuarty117

In Response to Re: Downswings at micro cash:

The bigger your true winrate, the less variance will kick you in the butt. If your true winrate is very high in Micro stakes games (say 10bb/100 hands) then a 50BI downswing would be very unlikely. If however your true winrate was only 1 or 2bb per 100 hands then a 50BI downswing at some point will be a lot more likely.  How many tables are you currently playing? One way to stop the downswing can be to reduce the number of tables since this should (in theory) increase your winrate. I still think most people in poker play way too many tables and it affects your ability to learn as you are playing as well as trying to be creative whilst playing because you don't have enough time to think properly per hand - as such, you get stuck in a very abc style.
Posted by F_Ivanovic

This is great advice

I am mainly a dym player and went through a bad downswing. I usually play 4 tables.

I reduced this to 2 and my win rate shot back up, i had more time to think about decisions and hopefully make the correct ones.

I dont understand when people say add more tables to reduce variance i just found i made more mistakes adding more tables.

I still only play 2 maybe add another if i get a double up quick on one table.

Stuarty

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Downswings at micro cash:

In Response to Re: Downswings at micro cash : This is great advice I am mainly a dym player and went through a bad downswing. I usually play 4 tables. I reduced this to 2 and my win rate shot back up, i had more time to think about decisions and hopefully make the correct ones. I dont understand when people say add more tables to reduce variance i just found i made more mistakes adding more tables. I still only play 2 maybe add another if i get a double up quick on one table. Stuarty
Posted by stuarty117

I think that applies mostly if you just play 1 or 2 tables.

Reducing the amount of tables up is deffo a good starting point.

BigBluster

You may not be doing much wrong at all.

If you're roughly a break-even player (after rake) who has been multi-tabling hard and played 100K hands, then you've lost the equivalent of 25 flips for your 50 buy-ins. In 100K hands I guess you've had maybe 300 flips or cold decks and 'should' have won 150 of them. Winning just 125 is very possible (about 14%). 

As Ivanovic says, if you're actually a 10BB/100 winner then wiping this out means 50 flips going awry - winning just 100 of the 150 expected. Possible, if very unlikely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CraigSG1

I 100% say you should reduce tables to about four. 

As a decent player I believe that that will be the perfect balance for you to be able to not get bored if you go card/situation dead and give you the chance to study other players and how they are playing their hands.

It also lets you get back to thinking about why you are doing the things you are doing such as why am i betting/calling/raising, how active is this guy, what does his min raises mean or is he always raising the button, does he alwasy call 3 bets and so on.

The lower stakes are harder I believe because there is such a wide range of players that play all sorts of hands all sorts of ways. You get players that raise every hand, limp fold to every raise, always call 3 bets, will just open jam 72o or AA or pot bet there bluffs or pot bet the nuts. So playing less tables while you catagorise and make notes can be very useful so when you have a bit more confidence or have got a better handle on your opponenents then you can add more tables as you will have more information.

Good luck. 

freechips1

Have you took into consideration that rake at 10nl is 7.5% ?

Anyone know what your win rate would have to be over a large sample (100k hands) just to beat the rake?

Something  i was thinking about a while ago with variance, was big and small pots.  We could win 60% of our flips at 100bb pots. (we have ran +ev).  We only win 40% of flips when we get it in 200bb deep.

When people say 100k hands is a good sample size do they take into account we could of ran bad when we are sat deep? Can we play enough hands in a life time to iron out deep/small pots? 

I will try a example, 100 hands at nl10, not inc rake.

We win 60% of flips vs 50bb short stack. 100 hands, win 60 = +£300, lose 40 = -£200. Total +£100

Lose 60% of flips vs 200bb stack. 100 hands, win 40 = +£800, lose 60 = -£1200. total -£400

We have ran even (won lost the right amount) but we have lost £300 (3000bb).

Have i lost the plot?

GELDY

no matter what level you are playing downswings hurt BAD

number of tables is irrelevant unless it affects your game

too many that you are not concentrating sufficiently is bad, regardless of whether thats 1 or 21

too few that you are bored likewise

but assuming you are playing sensibly, and you know you are a winning player, just play through it

but clinic a lot of hands to check that it's just variance and not poor play

BigBluster

In Response to Re: Downswings at micro cash:

Have you took into consideration that rake at 10nl is 7.5% ? Anyone know what your win rate would have to be over a large sample (100k hands) just to beat the rake? Something  i was thinking about a while ago with variance, was big and small pots.  We could win 60% of our flips at 100bb pots. (we have ran +ev).  We only win 40% of flips when we get it in 200bb deep. When people say 100k hands is a good sample size do they take into account we could of ran bad when we are sat deep? Can we play enough hands in a life time to iron out deep/small pots?  I will try a example, 100 hands at nl10, not inc rake. We win 60% of flips vs 50bb short stack. 100 hands, win 60 = +£300, lose 40 = -£200. Total +£100 Lose 60% of flips vs 200bb stack. 100 hands, win 40 = +£800, lose 60 = -£1200. total -£400 We have ran even (won lost the right amount) but we have lost £300 (3000bb). Have i lost the plot?
Posted by freechips1

I don't think you have. The effect of luck is so great that I suspect that a lot of the top or 'great' players out there are just lucky - simply getting hands at the right time. I don't know how many people have had a go at online poker, let's say 50 million. Looking at a bell curve of 50 million samples, statistically some of these 50 million will have been smacked in the face by the deck and ran extremely lucky (winning, say, 80 out of 100 flips in your scenario) and these guys could well be the ones considered to be great players based on their great results when they are no more than lucky. 

Mathematically, it is unarguable.

And as for beating a 7.5% rake: I'd say it was possible five years ago, but today it's really a tough hill to climb.

I've said it before, but online poker is like selling shovels. Sure, some people struck gold in the California Gold Rush, but those selling the shovels were the real winners.

shakinaces

Cheers for the posts.

I only ever play 6-tables at most and more often stick at 4 unless there are rec/bad-reg-filled tables that tempt me to join.

Will keep it more strictly to 4 for the time being and see what difference that makes.  Drop down to 2 and my focus will end up being shared with the internetz and probably make things even worse (as per the 2 x PLO micro tournis I played for a laugh last night!)

It's frustrating how quickly its turned... all seemed so easy for the past 12 months or so or continued upswing!

One thing I noticed from flicking through some smaller pots is that I'm getting way less fold pre-flop and when c-betting. 

With lots of limpers I used to be getting lots of folds when I bash in a big raise... or at least narrow the field down and then take down most pots on the flop.

The last week or so there is a definite increase in the amount of times that we're going 4 or 5 way to the flop, which I'm rightly or wrongly then not c-betting when I miss and probably sticking around too long when I get anything other than the absolute nuts.

Perhaps the current game just requires me to shrink my starting range right down with limpers, remove anything below big PP and AK/AQ and look to overlimp more when in position with weak suited aces, mid-small PP and reasonable SC that I can fold cheaply if I don't flop huge - giving up on raising other broadways completely given how tricky they then play in a bloated multi-way pot.

rancid

U should have a over limping range for sure

But u should raise a range that is ahead

Raising a range that is not ahead where the flop is going to go multi way is -Ev

Downswings happen 

You should really get someone to look at your hands where you think Standard