# Poker Video: Misc/Other by PygmyHero (Micro/Small Stakes)

## Tool Time: Excel for Poker Math

This is a free video. Like what you see? Log In or to view the rest of our Poker Videos.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

### Tool Time: Excel for Poker Math by PygmyHero

DeucesCracked member teaches the use of Excel for mathematical analysis of poker statistics. He describes what information we can learn from winrates, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. He also uses Excel to analyze proper bankroll management decisions for the amateur and the pro.

Videos to help you get the most out of the DeucesCracked experience. Quick tips on tools from RSS readers to next-gen trackers and everything in-between. Good stuff IMO.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 42 minutes long
• Posted about 5 years ago

## Comments for Tool Time: Excel for Poker Math

or track by Email or RSS

#### jml

12 posts
Joined 01/2008

Awesome vid. You didn't mention NL but everything seems to work out good for it if you have a good WR (at 3.5 with SD of 42, the BR reqs blew up though and said I needed 30k to play 1/2 :S w/ 5% RoR).

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Great video Pygmy.

One minor note. You didn't explicitly mention this, though it's implicit in the professional bankroll requirement, is that the risk of being a losing player bankroll-wise increases significantly once you start to take out living expenses. (It's implicit in that it's in the equation for pro bankroll. So it's not like you ignore it, but just that I think it's worth mentioning explicitly.) If one constantly withdraws near the amount of historic winrate, it's pretty much certain that you're going to go broke, or at least have to go down in limits. Which might not be an option if you're a professional. After moving down, you're expectation decreases and you need to build up your bankroll in order to move back up.

By the way, The Mathematics of Poker has good discussion on sort of advanced concepts of bankroll management and risk of ruin if anyone wants to know more.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Awesome vid. You didn't mention NL but everything seems to work out good for it if you have a good WR (at 3.5 with SD of 42, the BR reqs blew up though and said I needed 30k to play 1/2 :S w/ 5% RoR).

I'm pretty sure you got something wrong in the calculation. It's basically the same with NL. The big bet in NL (regarding Poker Tracker's std dev number, for example) is two times the big blind so in NL200's case it's \$4.

#### Hypnotic

1169 posts
Joined 02/2008

holy crap. awesome vid PH! Thanks

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Equations will follow but take longer to type up. For now, if you're interested...

The idea for this video originated in this thread in the Beginner LHE Forum.

jajvirta suggests an alternative method for these calculations at the end of page one and iplaylimit suggests another method in the middle of page 2.

~22 I bring in the bankroll equation. I mentioned a few sources:

Blackjack Attack, by Don Schlesinger.

A paper by Patrick Sileo.

A few 2+2 threads where BruceZ discusses the equation, including a thread where he and Mason Malmuth compare it to the bankroll equation in Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

I can try and find these last few items, but not unless someone let's me know they're interested in reading them. And even then I will not promise I can find them, but I will try.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Equations

The format I'll use is as follows:
Description of the cell data (cell location)
Explanation of equation in words
The exact syntax that needs to be entered into Excel in quotes

The cell references will assume you've followed the form I've laid out and will make all entries into column B (since column A has the headings). If you formatted the data differently (like a horizontal layout) you'll need to adjust accordingly.

Uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands (cell B5)
Standard deviation in big bets per one hundred hands divided by the square root of the number of hands divided by one hundred
"=B4/SQRT(B2/100)"

68% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (cell B6)
Win rate minus uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3-B5"

68% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (cell B7)
Win rate plus uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3+B5"

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (cell B8)
Win rate minus two times the uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3-2*B5"

95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (cell B9)
Win rate plus two times the uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3+2*B5"

99% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (cell B10)
Win rate minus three times the uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3-3*B5"

99% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (cell B11)
Win rate plus three times the uncertainty in big bets per one hundred hands
"=B3+3*B5"

Recreational Bankroll (cell B14)
Negative natural log of risk of ruin times the standard deviation in big bets per one hundred hands squared divided by two times the win rate in big bets per one hundred hands times the big bet
"=-LN(B13)*B4^2/(2*B3)*B12"
N.B. The negative sign at the beginning of the equation. You can make the carrot by pressing SHIFT+6.

Total Budget (on the Budget tab, cell B13)
Sum of all expenses
"=SUM(B2:B12)"

Monthly Nut (cell B15)
All expenses in a month for the professional player
"=Budget!B13"

Professional Bankroll (cell B17)
This one really doesn't make any sense in words, especially because you need to have parentheses in the correct locations to ensure that order of operations is carried out as you want it, but this is about it: negative natural log of risk of ruin times the standard deviation in big bets per one hundred hands squared divided by two times the win rate in big bets per one hundred hands minus the monthly nut divided by the big bet divided by the number of hands per month divided by one hundred times the big bet
"=-LN(B13)*B4^2/(2*(B3-B15/B12/(B16/100)))*B12"

Living Reserve (cell B18)
Monthly nut times six
"=B15*6"

Starting Pro Bankroll (cell B19)
Required professional bankroll amount plus a six month living reserve
"=B17+B18"

For the Live Player

Note that I changed much of the cell formatting. Almost everything on this tab is formatted to be currency with two decimal places showing. Also note that the Big Bet row is removed, meaning the cell reference locations are slightly different at the bottom of the sheet. Most of the formulas are the same, except for as follows:

Uncertainty in dollars per hour (cell B5)
Standard deviation in dollars per hour divided by the square root of the number of hours
"=B4/SQRT(B2)"

Recreational Bankroll (cell B13)
Negative natural log of risk of ruin times the standard deviation in dollars per hour squared divided by two times the win rate in dollars per hour
"=-LN(B12)*B4^2/(2*B3)"
N.B. the slightly different cell locations.

Professional Bankroll (cell B16)
This one makes a little more sense in words, but not much. Also you still really need to watch that your parentheses are correct. It is: negative natural log of risk of ruin times the standard deviation in dollars per hour squared divided by two times the win rate in dollars per hour minus the monthly nut divided by the number of hours per month
"=-LN(B12)*B4^2/(2*(B3-B14/B15))"
N.B. again, slightly different cell locations.

That was a lot to type up, so if anyone spots an error in any of the equations please let me know.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Miscellaneous

All NL players (and PL for that matter) you need to make an adjustment to the spreadsheet. Since your game has no big bet you need to enter the big blind*2 in cell B12. This will make all data in the sheet consistent in terms of the units being used.

Thanks to jajavirta for pointing this out. jml - I assume that will solve your problem. I would guess you have \$2 in that cell right now, and it needs to be \$4.

I do not take rakeback and bonuses into account in this spreadsheet. That's because they don't matter in terms of determining whether or not you are a winning player (i.e. I would consider a break even or small loser who makes money on rakeback and bonuses to be a 'profitable' player, but not a winner). They also then don't matter in terms of figuring out if you're beating a limit and should move up (assuming you use the metric I proposed - that you be 99% certain you are winning at your current limit).

However, they should come into play in determining your bankroll requirements. Basically the distinction I'm drawing here is between your win rate (which only attests to your skill as a player), and your earn rate (which is the more telling number for your financial situation).

I felt that adding those factors in went beyond the scope of this video. You'd need to account for what portion of the rake was generated by you, which varies by sites, what percentage you received, the bonus clearing structure for each site, deducting bonuses from MGR, how often you'd be clearing bonuses, etc. I do have a separate spreadsheet that does all of this for a few of the sites I play at, but again, it just seemed like including all of that was too much, especially since you need a different set up for each site.

#### bullyboh

1 posts
Joined 01/2008

does multitabling really change anything ?
that should be covered by a lower winrate or am i wrong ?

#### googs

30 posts
Joined 03/2008

Shit, I just failed my STATs test literally 15 minutes ago on this stuff. Wasn't expecting to see more of this stuff today, but I'm sure you guys are better than my professors.

#### Medrakil

9 posts
Joined 04/2008

SD for LHE is as you say appr 17.5 or so.. For NLHE its prob about 50.. Dont you have to take this into consideration?

And another thing..If you belive you are a 3BB/100 winning player at 100nl, playing 25000 hands a month with a SD of 50, and you have 1000\$ a month for expences then you need a 7500\$ bankroll for 100nl?Is that because you always wanna increase your bankroll while playing?

#### Sugar Nut

842 posts
Joined 03/2008

Hey Pygmy,

great stuff in here, thx a lot for it!

I do however get a negative \$ amount for Professional Bankroll. I've been fiddling around with this for some time now trying to find my error, but just don't seem to be able to.

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6926/negativebankrollrg5.jpg

If you could mabe take a look at my equasion??

BTW, I'm obv not trying to become a 100NL pro but this is the limit where I have the most data from so I tried to get the spreadsheet to work with 100NL

THX,

Sugar Nut

#### Sugar Nut

842 posts
Joined 03/2008

Hmmm,

No edit function here...

FYI, the "Game" cell is B2

Sugar Nut

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Hey Sugar Nut, your formula looks correct and I got the same result using your data. I'm not really sure why this is yet. I'm going to try breaking the equation down a little bit. I really hope I didn't make a syntactical error in this video as that'd be pretty bad.

By the way, you can edit your post for up to 30 minutes after making it. The option is just to the left of the Reply buttons.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

And another thing..If you belive you are a 3BB/100 winning player at 100nl, playing 25000 hands a month with a SD of 50, and you have 1000\$ a month for expences then you need a 7500\$ bankroll for 100nl?Is that because you always wanna increase your bankroll while playing?

The bankroll doesn't have any resiliency for swings if you take most of your winnings out. Another thing is that if you estimate having 3BB/100 winrate and in actuality you have a 2BB/100 winrate and if you cash-out 2BB/100 monthly, then your bankroll doesn't have resiliency for swings at all and you will eventually deplete your whole bankroll (unless you move down in limits etc).

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

SD for LHE is as you say appr 17.5 or so.. For NLHE its prob about 50.. Dont you have to take this into consideration?

Yes. I'm a LHE player and I have almost no experience with NL so I had no idea what an appropriate SD would be. I'll take your word for it.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Hey Sugar Nut, your formula looks correct and I got the same result using your data. I'm not really sure why this is yet. I'm going to try breaking the equation down a little bit. I really hope I didn't make a syntactical error in this video as that'd be pretty bad.

I'd guess it's the fact that he's taking more out of his bankroll than his monthly expecation and this does some funny stuff to the equation.

842 posts
Joined 03/2008

Sugar Nut

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

SD for LHE is as you say appr 17.5 or so.. For NLHE its prob about 50.. Dont you have to take this into consideration?

The spreadsheet does take this into account. Just fill in your std dev in BB/100 for the corresponding cell and you're good to go.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Sugar Nut

I'm pretty sure it's the fact that you take out more than you make per month with those figures. You can't do that. :-)

In fact, you can't take out even near your monthly expecation, because that removes the resiliency from the bankroll. If you were to calculate say the classic risk of ruin for your bankroll, you'd have to calculate that from your net winrate (winrate from which any monthly expenses are reduced).

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Okay Sugar Nut, I think I've solved the problem here. The part of the formula (from your spreadsheet, NOT mine) I want to look at is:

"C4-C16/C13/(C17/100)"

In words this is your win rate minus the nut divided by the big bet (big blind*2 since you play NL) divided by hands per month divided by 100.

The problem is that nut/big bet/hands/100 = 6.25, which is a larger number than your win rate of 4.7. That negative number propagates through the rest of the formula, which is why you have a negative result for bankroll requirement. This of course doesn't mean you need no money to play that game professionally, it rather means you CANNOT play that game professionally given the stakes, your win rate, and the monthly nut you input.

For the Excel geek who really wants to solve this problem I would recommend re-writing the bankroll formula to include an IF statement. Going back to my sheets format, cell B17 might read something like:

"=IF(B15/B12/(B16/100)>B3,"lol not a pro",-LN(B13)*B4^2/(2*(B3-B15/B12/(B16/100)))*B12)"

Edited to add: so jajvirta is right again. And faster than me. Your win rate just isn't high enough to support that monthly nut (if you were a pro that is).

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Sugar Nut, since your sheet is laid out differently I think you'll want the formula in C18 to read:

"=IF(C16/C13/(C17/100)>C4,"lol not a pro",-LN(C14)*C5^2/(2*(C4-C16/C13/(C17/100)))*C13)"

And no worries - I get the same message if I try to enter a reasonable nut for the stakes I'm playing.

By the way, I really like using IF statements so you'll have to forgive me for being silly here. I was considering writing an IF statement into the video to look at whether or not the data showed you were 99% certain you were a winning player and then advise you to either move up or that you suck and needed to play more hands.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

The spreadsheet does take this into account. Just fill in your std dev in BB/100 for the corresponding cell and you're good to go.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

jajvirta - I think he's saying I didn't recommend an appropriate SD for a NL player and we both recognize it'll be different then the 17-18 I recommended for the LHE player.

#### Medrakil

9 posts
Joined 04/2008

What Im saying is that if you have 100 000 hands that say you play 3bb/100 at 100NL 100 000 hands that say you play 3bb/100 at 100L, then you will ned 2.5k\$ bankroll for NL, and 324\$ for L just by changing the SD from 50-->17.. Is this standard?

#### Medrakil

9 posts
Joined 04/2008

I get the bankroll for NL is correct, but is 350 enough for 100L?

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Medrakil, I agree that the formula shows you need just under \$2,500 to play 100 NL recreationally given the numbers you've proposed. I don't understand what you intend "L" to signify in your last two posts.

"...324\$ for L..."
"...is 350 enough for 100L?"

Sugar Nut - did everything that jajvirta and I posted make sense?

#### jrbick

10 posts
Joined 01/2008

Awesome vid tyvm for sharing this.

Looking foward to some clarification for NLHE if there needs to be any.

#### pkr_brat

797 posts
Joined 01/2008

Really intresting video i was wondering what stats i would need to make an sng 1 any ideas?

Number of hands would be Number of tourneys
Win rate would be ROI
SD in BB/100???
Uncertanity in BB/100???

#### Medrakil

9 posts
Joined 04/2008

"...324\$ for L..."
"...is 350 enough for 100L?"

NL = No Limit
L = Limit

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

Good vid.

Here are some numbers that I ran for NL people.

100NL, 4ptbb/100 winner with SD of 50ptbb/100. 100k hands played.

Risk of ruin of 2% (which I think is correct for full time pros).

A recreational BR is \$2445.

A professional BR depends entirely on your nut. Assuming a nut of 2500, your BR is \$6250 = 62BI.

Recreational BR = \$4890
Professional BR = \$7240 = 36BI

Rec BR = \$9780, ~24BI
Pro BR = \$11677, ~29BI

So it's clear that at lower stakes, your nut has a huge impact on your BR requirements. It's pretty dramatic.

#### Medrakil

9 posts
Joined 04/2008

THats pretty obv though durka beacause your nut will often be closer to your actual earnings pr. month..
How many hands did you type in as an expected hands/month?

#### Jake123

39 posts
Joined 03/2008

Holdem manager doesnÃ‚Â´t show Standard deviation, what is a good approximate for me playing 2-4\$ with the stats 23/20/3,7 and mostly at 5-max. Hard to tell maybe but give me something.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Holdem manager doesnÃ‚Â´t show Standard deviation, what is a good approximate for me playing 2-4\$ with the stats 23/20/3,7 and mostly at 5-max. Hard to tell maybe but give me something.

Hard to tell if you don't specify the game you're playing. But I guess one can assume from the stats that it's NL so I'd say something in the order of 50BB per 100 standard deviation.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Clarification for NL and PL players

You will need to enter your SD in BB/100, same as a LHE player. I'm not a NLHE player so I don't know what a standard number is, but 50 BB/100 has been tossed around in this thread. If you need a more precise estimate just contact a NL player you know with a large database and ask them what they think (or what their db says).

In cell B12, the Big Bet, you need to enter 2*the big blind. So if you're playing 100NL enter \$2 here.

Everything else should work out fine.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Sugar Nut - does everything make sense now? I didn't hear back from you. Sorry if I offended you - I wasn't trying to make fun of the fact that you're not a pro. I'm not either and at the stakes you play I'm sure you make more than I do in a month. I was just having some fun - sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Jake123 - If you're playing limit I would suggest you use 17-18 BB/100. If you're playing NL I would suggest 50 BB/100 unless you get better advice from a NL player. I don't use HEM but I'm surprised that it doesn't show SD. If you searched pretty thoroughly and couldn't find it I'd suggest you write HEM support as they definitely should show it and I understand that the HEM team is very good about responding to these sorts of things and updating their product.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Medrakil - I'm with you now on the NL versus LHE stuff. So I already said I agree with your calculation for NLHE given the numbers you suggested.

The problem is that there's really no such game as 100 limit. If I leave all the stuff you wrote in for the NLHE player then the big bet is \$2, meaning the game is really 1/2 LHE. In that case the spreadsheet suggests a BR of just over \$300, or 150 big bets.

That is small from the perspective that most people advocate 300+ (really more like 500 now as I mention in the video) big bets. However, I don't think it's terrible small from the perspective that you have the player crushing the game for 3 BB/100 over a pretty decent hand sample size of 100,000 hands.

Note especially in that case how low their uncertainty in win rate is (~0.5 big bets). And we're over 99% sure they win at a rate of almost 1.5 BB/100. In other words, they're very confident they're a very solid winner. So it shouldn't be so surprising that their BR requirement is low.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Really intresting video i was wondering what stats i would need to make an sng 1 any ideas?

Number of hands would be Number of tourneys
Win rate would be ROI
SD in BB/100???
Uncertanity in BB/100???

pkr_brat, I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on this and that I did see your post and am not ignoring it. I'm not a tournament player so I'm not very familiar with the stuff that goes into it. I'm going to do some research and see if I can get you some answers.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

pkr_brat, I haven't been able to figure this out. I have two problems - I'm not sure which stats should be involved, and even if I knew them I'm not sure what equation to use. If we figured out which stats for cash games were equivalent to which stats for tournaments I don't know that you'd just be able to shove them into the same equation I used for cash games (that is, there may not be a 1:1 equivalence).

If I had to take a guess I'd agree with you that:
number of hands ~ number of tournaments
win rate ~ ROI

I'd guess that:
SD in BB/100 ~ SD in % return per tournament (it could be SD in dollar return, but I think that's less likely)
Uncertainty in BB/100 would have to equate to something in the same unit as the above stat, so uncertainty in % return per tournament would be my guess

Unfortunately, in looking through PT I haven't been able to find anything that looks like a SD stat.

Sorry I can't help more. I'd advise you post in a tournament forum or do some searching on 2+2.

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

THats pretty obv though durka beacause your nut will often be closer to your actual earnings pr. month..
How many hands did you type in as an expected hands/month?

I know it's obvious, but it's not clear (without doing the numbers) how it affects BR calculations.

I put in 50k hands, which is reasonable.

#### Sugar Nut

842 posts
Joined 03/2008

Sugar Nut - does everything make sense now? I didn't hear back from you. Sorry if I offended you - I wasn't trying to make fun of the fact that you're not a pro. I'm not either and at the stakes you play I'm sure you make more than I do in a month. I was just having some fun - sorry if it came out the wrong way.

No offence taken pygmy, I'm just going through some tough real life times right now and am not online every day.

Seems to make sense, thank you.

I do unserstand and love humour, don't worry about that pygmy,

Sugar Nut

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

No offence taken pygmy, I'm just going through some tough real life times right now and am not online every day.

Seems to make sense, thank you.

I do unserstand and love humour, don't worry about that pygmy,

Sugar Nut

Assuming 5ptbb/100 WR, you'd have to play 25k hands to make your nut and you'd have absurd swings because your effective WR is zero. So, in order to have any chance to beat the variance fairy, you'd have to be putting in a minimum of 40k hands/month, IMO at 100NL with a 2500 nut and a WR between 4-5.

Also, it seems unclear that for the spreadsheet, those values are PTBB/100 right?

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Also, it seems unclear that for the spreadsheet, those values are PTBB/100 right?

Yes. As mentioned earlier in this thread a few times, NL players will need to plug in 2*big blind for the "Big Bet" value in cell B12.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

I do not take rakeback and bonuses into account in this spreadsheet. That's because they don't matter in terms of determining whether or not you are a winning player (i.e. I would consider a break even or small loser who makes money on rakeback and bonuses to be a 'profitable' player, but not a winner). They also then don't matter in terms of figuring out if you're beating a limit and should move up (assuming you use the metric I proposed - that you be 99% certain you are winning at your current limit).

I don't agree with this at all. I find it a bit arbitrary to draw the line on the rake-reduced and rakeback-added winrates. The ultimate goal is to make money and it really doesn't matter whether it's from "pure" win or rakeback. Rakeback just means that the effective rake isn't exactly what is announced on the site's rake structure. Different sites have different rake + rakeback systems and for the player, the only thing that really matters is the net result.

To give more concrete example let's think of a player A playing FL 2/4 on Ongame network and player B playing the same game on PokerStars. Both have the same raw winrate of say 4.5BB/100. Player A has a 50% rakeback deal, but what'll show up on Poker Tracker is 0.5BB/100 winrate (if it has converged), because Ongame takes roughly 4BB/100 rake. Player B, however, has 2.5BB/100 winrate on Poker Tracker as PokerStars take roughly 2BB/100 rake. So they both have a net winrate of 2.5BB/100.

So they have the same raw result, they net the same result (other one partly through rakeback), but what shows up without rakeback is radically different number. I don't see this should make any difference for determing whether one's "winner" or whether one can move up in limits.

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

I don't agree with this at all. I find it a bit arbitrary to draw the line on the rake-reduced and rakeback-added winrates. The ultimate goal is to make money and it really doesn't matter whether it's from "pure" win or rakeback. Rakeback just means that the effective rake isn't exactly what is announced on the site's rake structure. Different sites have different rake + rakeback systems and for the player, the only thing that really matters is the net result.

To give more concrete example let's think of a player A playing FL 2/4 on Ongame network and player B playing the same game on PokerStars. Both have the same raw winrate of say 4.5BB/100. Player A has a 50% rakeback deal, but what'll show up on Poker Tracker is 0.5BB/100 winrate (if it has converged), because Ongame takes roughly 4BB/100 rake. Player B, however, has 2.5BB/100 winrate on Poker Tracker as PokerStars take roughly 2BB/100 rake. So they both have a net winrate of 2.5BB/100.

So they have the same raw result, they net the same result (other one partly through rakeback), but what shows up without rakeback is radically different number. I don't see this should make any difference for determing whether one's "winner" or whether one can move up in limits.

I have mixed thoughts on how to factor in RB. I think it DOES matter in your example because the person w/ RB isn't beating the game very well without it. So, it would be a bad idea for him to move up vs the non-RB player since it seems unclear whether he can actually beat the game. All he's doing is what those 12 tabling RB machines do: they play simply to break even poker-wise, and make their money of RB. They can't really beat the game, but they don't care because they play well enough to not 'lose'. However, they likely experience big short-medium term swings...but they play so many hands that they usually even out when the month is done.

I tend to calculate my WR by putting in a hefty buffer. Over tonnes of hands, I'm a 4.5ptbb/100 winner, and my RB works out to 1.5ptbb/100 on top. But, I figure my combined WR to just be 5. This way, my confidence interval for being a "winning" player for 3.5ptbb/100 (poker-wise, not including RB) can be very very high. Thus, I can have a combined WR of 5ptbb/100 with 99%+ confidence and can calculate how many hands/month I need to play based on my nut and desire to grow my roll.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you're at least 95% confident that you're a winning player for a limit, but you're not 99% sure (which we're assuming is a decent prerequisite for moving up), then RB can be used to push you over the edge. But, I don't think that you should use it to get you INTO the 95% confidence interval and use that as justification for moving up. I think one would be kidding themselves then into thinking that they're a solid winning player for a given limit.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

I have mixed thoughts on how to factor in RB. I think it DOES matter in your example because the person w/ RB isn't beating the game very well without it.

But, really, what's the difference? Both are playing the same game, effective 2BB/100 rake with the same absolute and net winrate.

So, it would be a bad idea for him to move up vs the non-RB player since it seems unclear whether he can actually beat the game.

If you define "beating the game" as beating the gross rake, then this makes some sense, but it doesn't make any sense to make such a definition. :-)

PS. Maybe this discussion should be moved to its own thread or something. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion about the video anymore.

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

Sure it's relevant.

Maybe someone else can pipe in on whether the existence of higher rake means that someone winning for 0.5bb/100 is really "beating" the game for someone playing at a lower rake site.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

I think this conversation is definitely still relevant to the thread. As I mentioned in the video a few times, people should be aware that I'm just presenting one way of looking at win rate, moving up, etc. There are different perspectives and I'm always glad that jajvirta presents his.

I will say that I disagree on this point though - I think rakeback and bonuses should be excluded when we talk about someone beating the game. I realize the semantics are starting to be a problem here, so I mean, 'beating the game' to mean the same thing as when I said, 'a winning player' in my previous post. That is, someone with a 0.0 BB/100 win rate (w/o rb and bonuses) is NOT a winning player. I think you're talking about whether or not a person is 'a profitable player.'

I think this is an important distinction because players with a lower win rate will have larger swings. Your hypothetical 0.5 BB/100 winner who makes an extra 2 BB/100 in rakeback and bonuses will have larger swings then the 2.5 BB/100 winner.

Let's say both players get exactly the same card, situations, and opponents and that they run cold for a while. At first I'd expect them to both dip below their normal win rate by about the same amount. But note that the rakeback player is now losing at the tables, while the winner is still in the black. I think the rakeback player is much more likely to exacerbate the bad run and end up losing more than the other player.

Also, is it really run to just grind a bunch of hands in order to break even? I know people do it, but I guess I just don't really understand why.

#### jajvirta

725 posts
Joined 03/2007

Also, is it really fun to just grind a bunch of hands in order to break even? I know people do it, but I guess I just don't really understand why.

Heh, I see that this discussion isn't going anywhere anymore, and I'm fine with that, but I just wanted to say that I guess it boils down to me thinking that the "rakeback winner" isn't grinding in order to break even. But I'll leave it at that and hope that both viewpoints have been presented here somewhat objectively. I guess both views have their merits.

32 posts
Joined 02/2008

Heh, I see that this discussion isn't going anywhere anymore, and I'm fine with that, but I just wanted to say that I guess it boils down to me thinking that the "rakeback winner" isn't grinding in order to break even. But I'll leave it at that and hope that both viewpoints have been presented here somewhat objectively. I guess both views have their merits.

Well, the people I'm referring to play 10 tables 12hrs/day and are MAYBE 1-2ptbb/100 winners, but since they get 1.5ptbb/100 in rb and basically play 10k hands/day, they're making good \$\$. But, BORING!

#### ShLiM

16 posts
Joined 01/2008

Sorry for bother you but, can u look at the pic, and tell me is it supposed to look like this, I mean the b12 cell, Im NL player

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5674/wonderingzd1.jpg

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

ShLiM, it's no bother. And this will be easy to fix. When I said enter the big blind*2 in cell B12, I didn't literally mean, enter "big blind*2" in the cell. Rather, I meant enter the value, depending on the limit you are playing.

For 50NL enter 1 (\$0.50 big blind * 2 = \$1).
For 100NL enter 2 (\$1 big blind * 2 = \$2).

And so on...

You won't need to enter an equal sign, the dollar sign, or anything else fancy. Just "1" (or "2" or whatever the case may be - leave off the quotes too).

Let me know if you need any other help.

#### Busting you

572 posts
Joined 12/2007

pygmyhero,

great video i used this in excel immediately. You are running pretty sick.

#### pkr_brat

797 posts
Joined 01/2008

pkr_brat, I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on this and that I did see your post and am not ignoring it. I'm not a tournament player so I'm not very familiar with the stuff that goes into it. I'm going to do some research and see if I can get you some answers.

Thanks for trying

#### fourscoreseven

8 posts
Joined 06/2008

Wow, what a great video! Thank you very much, hope to see more videos from you.
fourscore

#### daveshoelace

4 posts
Joined 03/2008

Great video, really made some taxing content seem easy to understand

Is it at all possible to make up some blank templates that we can download?

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Wow, what a great video! Thank you very much, hope to see more videos from you.
fourscore

Thanks fourscore. I may have something else in the works. I have a lot of the preliminary work on it done, but have not yet pitched the idea to the DC powers-that-be.

#### PygmyHero

4246 posts
Joined 08/2007

Great video, really made some taxing content seem easy to understand

Is it at all possible to make up some blank templates that we can download?

Thanks dave - I'm hoping that everyone was able to create whatever they needed while watching the video, but I'd certainly be willing to share the file if anyone was struggling or just didn't want to put in the work. It's really not very elaborate at all.

Anyway, I think the best thing is if DC had a page where members could download files from - maybe you could make a suggestion to this effect in the All About DC forum. I think it's been brought up before but hasn't happened for whatever reason. I don't know that there are a lot of non-video files that people are interested in downloading, so it may just be that they're way busier with a ton of other stuff.

#### internist

1 posts
Joined 12/2008

I wonder if anyone can send me the spread sheet as it was made in the video? I would be very gratefull if someone could do this, the Spreadsheet can be your own version og eg the numbers etc. I just want the formatting and formulas etc.