![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
August Figures
Sep. 1st, 2006 12:35 pmAll a bit like July, really, which is fine as far as I am concerned.
All of which, taken in isolation, might make one conclude that I suck at $1-$2. In fact, for reasons of simplicity, the HORSE $1-$2 is included here, as is my venture into short-handed.
My good run continued at Party until near the end of the month and at one point I looked set for a $1500 win. Fortunately I resisted the temptation to "move up when winning". Regression to the mean duly set in (plus a bit more besides) and I lost some of it back.
I've often felt intuitively that the "move up when you are on a good run" theory is flawed (particularly online, where you see a different group of opponents at deifferent levels, unlike a live game, where people playing in the 15-30 are likely to have seen you cleaning up in the 8-16) and now I have a theoretical answer why I instinctively felt that it was wrong.
The answer is our old friend regression to the mean. If you are running particularly well and you move up in stakes, you are likely to do relatively less well at those higher stakes than you had just been doing at the lower stakes, even if you would in the long run win the same number of big bets per hour at the higher level. In other words, changing the level at which you play when you are experiencing a freakish run is not a clever move, because regression to the mean means that you are likely to see that freakish run end, whether you changed the level of stakes you played at or not.
I think that the best time to move up in stakes is at the end of a decent run that is in line with your long-term average. That, at least, gives you a peg on which to hang things if you do well (or badly) at the higher level.
Anyhoo, back to last month. The first two weeks on Full Tilt were unremittingly awful, and the last two weeks were slightly better than I would expect in the long run. I have clocked up $160 in deposit bonus which is not reflected here (I book these numbers on the first of the month) so the bank balance on FTP is now about 30% higher than it was when I first sat down. I'm still getting the hang of the style of the game, and adapting to nine-handed (frequently seven or so with players often sitting out) is taking time, but I'm getting there.
I just got tired of the NL game on Virgin. I really do find NL boring, which makes it hard to concentrate on what players are doing, which makes it hard to make the right decision when you need to know players' styles in order to decide correctly. I think that I might like the live NL game, where I think my experience at poker as a whole will be useful against the more internet and "I've seen it on TV!" types. We'll know more when I get back from Vegas.
GIven the extra play on FTP, my hands on Party slipped to 6,000 from 7,000, and I cut back a lot on my play at Ultimate, which is a shithole. If only my win rate there wasn't so good! Knocking off one $3-$6 table and 2x $2-$4 tables full of weak-tights is probably the best low-variance way to gradual cash accumulation that I know. But that isn't much use when the software drives you nuts. I can just about manage an hour on the site before I need to come up for air.
For September, well, more of the same. I'll happily take an average of $1100 a month winnings for the rest of the year. If I can do it withoug bashing my brains in or suffering $600 single-day swings, then more's the better.
| STAKE | ||||||||
| SITE | Data | $2-$4 | $3-$6 | Bonus | $1-$2 | $50 NL | $100 NL | Grand Total |
| Party | Win | $791 | $94 | $112 | $996 | |||
| Ultimate | Win | -$119 | $150 | $100 | -$16 | $115 | ||
| Virgin | Win | $44 | $7 | $0.10 | $51 | |||
| Stars | Loss | $31 | -$88 | -$57 | ||||
| FT | Win | $47 | $113 | -$59 | $101 | |||
| Total Win | $763 | $387 | $212 | -$163 | $7 | $0.10 | $1,205 | |
| Total Hours | 60.0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 11.25 | 17.0 | 0.5 | 95.75 | |
| Avge per hour | $12.71 | $55.28 | -n/a | -$14.48 | $1.00 | $0.20 | $12.58 |
All of which, taken in isolation, might make one conclude that I suck at $1-$2. In fact, for reasons of simplicity, the HORSE $1-$2 is included here, as is my venture into short-handed.
My good run continued at Party until near the end of the month and at one point I looked set for a $1500 win. Fortunately I resisted the temptation to "move up when winning". Regression to the mean duly set in (plus a bit more besides) and I lost some of it back.
I've often felt intuitively that the "move up when you are on a good run" theory is flawed (particularly online, where you see a different group of opponents at deifferent levels, unlike a live game, where people playing in the 15-30 are likely to have seen you cleaning up in the 8-16) and now I have a theoretical answer why I instinctively felt that it was wrong.
The answer is our old friend regression to the mean. If you are running particularly well and you move up in stakes, you are likely to do relatively less well at those higher stakes than you had just been doing at the lower stakes, even if you would in the long run win the same number of big bets per hour at the higher level. In other words, changing the level at which you play when you are experiencing a freakish run is not a clever move, because regression to the mean means that you are likely to see that freakish run end, whether you changed the level of stakes you played at or not.
I think that the best time to move up in stakes is at the end of a decent run that is in line with your long-term average. That, at least, gives you a peg on which to hang things if you do well (or badly) at the higher level.
Anyhoo, back to last month. The first two weeks on Full Tilt were unremittingly awful, and the last two weeks were slightly better than I would expect in the long run. I have clocked up $160 in deposit bonus which is not reflected here (I book these numbers on the first of the month) so the bank balance on FTP is now about 30% higher than it was when I first sat down. I'm still getting the hang of the style of the game, and adapting to nine-handed (frequently seven or so with players often sitting out) is taking time, but I'm getting there.
I just got tired of the NL game on Virgin. I really do find NL boring, which makes it hard to concentrate on what players are doing, which makes it hard to make the right decision when you need to know players' styles in order to decide correctly. I think that I might like the live NL game, where I think my experience at poker as a whole will be useful against the more internet and "I've seen it on TV!" types. We'll know more when I get back from Vegas.
GIven the extra play on FTP, my hands on Party slipped to 6,000 from 7,000, and I cut back a lot on my play at Ultimate, which is a shithole. If only my win rate there wasn't so good! Knocking off one $3-$6 table and 2x $2-$4 tables full of weak-tights is probably the best low-variance way to gradual cash accumulation that I know. But that isn't much use when the software drives you nuts. I can just about manage an hour on the site before I need to come up for air.
For September, well, more of the same. I'll happily take an average of $1100 a month winnings for the rest of the year. If I can do it withoug bashing my brains in or suffering $600 single-day swings, then more's the better.
