You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
First username I type when I fancy doing some railing. Good luck in the big uns later.
Was good to see Micah and Lescott back at Eastlands on Saturday. Even Sinclair got mild applause when he came on. Mass exodus in the summer if the worst case scenario happens?
Morning.
You started a thread last night, & then, after good advice from Matt Bates, requested it be deleted. I have therefore deleted the discussion.
I have C & P the content & sent it to the Office.
If you wish to identify the players, you can EITHER advise CC, or, alternatively, send me the details via a PM, & I will ensure it is immediately forwarded to the right people in the office.
Thanks.
^^^^
Received & replied.
Thank you.
"The dreaded downswing, if we are winning players it makes us question if everything we know to be correct is actually a lie. It makes the strongest of mindsets crumble.... it makes us question if we should change our game?
A lot of people dont like asking themselves tough questions about what they are doing wrong and when they do they will often give themselves fabricated answers.... how is it to pass off a bad session as "Bad luck"?"
Great comments Danny, ditto the post by Lady Chiggy, Sheriffess of Somerset.
Downswings, when we can't seem to win at the rate we think we should, really do mess with our heads. But it's SO easy to take the "it's just variance" line, & say everything will soon sort it out. It's not always the case.
For balance, variance is an immensely powerful thing, a thing of beauty in so many ways.
I'm having my own questions to answer right now, my biggest downswing in 2.5 years, & the question I keep asking - is this just luck, or have I slipped behind the curve? My mind tries to convince me it is sheer run-bad, but that's such a lazy way of looking at it.
Anyway Danny & Lady C, I hope you both turn it round pronto.
But that's an easy one to explain - he is a far better player than me, as simple as that.
In fact, he's the best I've seen in the PLO8 DYM format. Think he won around 20 from 26 last night, & in addition, came 2nd in the £100 Guaranteed PLO8.
The night before he won 19 out of 24. He might be on a heater, but he's clearly immensely gifted at PLO8 & DYM's. It's a pleasure to watch him play, it really is.
if we use chiggy as an example:
on sky for a 2% ROI you need a 53.5% ITM
if we took 8000 players with an expected ITM of 53.5% and had them play 2k games on sky here's what the results would look like:
text:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Specified Simulation
Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution
1 53.5% 53.506719%
ITM 53.5% 53.506719%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8000 simulations of 2000 games
Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): 1.9% (38 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had ROI below 6.76% (135 Buyins)
97.5% had ROI below 6.00% (120 Buyins)
95% had ROI below 5.33% (107 Buyins)
90% had ROI below 4.66% (93 Buyins)
80% had ROI below 3.71% (74 Buyins)
70% had ROI below 3.04% (61 Buyins)
60% had ROI below 2.47% (49 Buyins)
50% had ROI below 1.90% (38 Buyins)
40% had ROI below 1.33% (27 Buyins)
30% had ROI below 0.85% (17 Buyins)
20% had ROI below 0.19% (4 Buyins)
10% had ROI below -0.77% (-15 Buyins)
5% had ROI below -1.53% (-31 Buyins)
2.5% had ROI below -2.29% (-46 Buyins)
1% had ROI below -3.24% (-65 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a downswing greater than 17 buyins
97.5% had a downswing greater than 19 buyins
95% had a downswing greater than 21 buyins
90% had a downswing greater than 23 buyins
80% had a downswing greater than 27 buyins
70% had a downswing greater than 30 buyins
60% had a downswing greater than 33 buyins
50% had a downswing greater than 36 buyins
40% had a downswing greater than 40 buyins
30% had a downswing greater than 44 buyins
20% had a downswing greater than 51 buyins
10% had a downswing greater than 61 buyins
5% had a downswing greater than 71 buyins
2.5% had a downswing greater than 80 buyins
1% had a downswing greater than 92 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins
97.5% had a low point lower than 0 buyins
95% had a low point lower than -1 buyins
90% had a low point lower than -2 buyins
80% had a low point lower than -4 buyins
70% had a low point lower than -7 buyins
60% had a low point lower than -10 buyins
50% had a low point lower than -14 buyins
40% had a low point lower than -18 buyins
30% had a low point lower than -23 buyins
20% had a low point lower than -31 buyins
10% had a low point lower than -43 buyins
5% had a low point lower than -55 buyins
2.5% had a low point lower than -65 buyins
1% had a low point lower than -81 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 233 games
97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 284 games
95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 326 games
90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 394 games
80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 498 games
70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 603 games
60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 709 games
50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 818 games
40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 952 games
30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1118 games
20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1355 games
10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1681 games
5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1880 games
2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1958 games
1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1993 games
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and to visualise:
http://pasteboard.co/2GpkCiIs.png
so 20% of the time a player with a true winrate of 53.5% would breakeven or worse over a 2k sample on sky.
-----------
with regard to cracking the £100+ level do the regs up there protect their lobbies? if so establihing at the hypers will be like playing a high-stakes game of chicken with your bankrolls.
Even without edge it might be in a regs interest spend some £££ to putting up-moving players bankrolls to the test. The husng lobbies tend to be competitive with lots of reg v reg games at decent stakes.
Love the attitude in the thread, sure you'll do well up there