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

Brilliant

Aaron - Thanks for the video.

This might be the "it depends" variance question but I will ask it anyway.

Do you have any tips for distinguishing 'run bad' from 'playing poorly'?

Any filters in HEM? I kinda dont trust ALLIN EV....

cause in soooo many reg threads on poker forums you get the omg I runbad and every reg whinges about it.......so any hints that we might take - ok Digger you are not running bad u suck bro - or just ride it out man your in the 5% worst simults.....

meh I hope you get the jist of it.

Appreciate the insight Wilt.

Great vid, thanks WoT

Watching this vid makes me think: Why would someone become a live pro?
Do live pro's have such a huge edge on the field? Or do they have no idea 100K break-even hand strechtes happen, even with a significant edge?

Watching this vid makes me think: Why would someone become a live pro?
Do live pro's have such a huge edge on the field? Or do they have no idea 100K break-even hand strechtes happen, even with a significant edge?

I definitely agree with you, but the live pros will say they get a higher winrate live than we can get online and therefore will have fewer swings (there is certainly an element of truth here) however there's also quite an element of survivorship bias in live pros. You never hear about the guys who get fed up or can't make it financially after months and months of breaking even/losing. They just slip away unnoticed unless there's a 2+2 NVG thread saying "what happened to x pro who won y tournament and has done nothing since". You hear a lot about the guys who can constantly make it playing the biggest stakes though and the people who win lots of tournaments. While it's certainly more likely the people you constantly hear about are quite a bit better than those you don't, there are going to be a good chunk of people who have run way above and way below their expectation.

It's a brutal world out there.

WoT

Aaron - Thanks for the video.

This might be the "it depends" variance question but I will ask it anyway.

Do you have any tips for distinguishing 'run bad' from 'playing poorly'?

Any filters in HEM? I kinda dont trust ALLIN EV....

cause in soooo many reg threads on poker forums you get the omg I runbad and every reg whinges about it.......so any hints that we might take - ok Digger you are not running bad u suck bro - or just ride it out man your in the 5% worst simults.....

meh I hope you get the jist of it.

It's a tough question to answer. I'm going to get on the road and drive 15 hours back home soon, so I will do more thinking about it then and try to post again if I can think of something meaningful to look for in HEM, however there is something I meant to talk about in the video that I can't remember if I mentioned or not (I hope I did) and that's the following idea:

When thinking about how you can tell whether or not you are ready to move up or whether you are running badly or playing badly, you should focus on how many identifiable mistakes/leaks/misunderstandings you can find in your opponents. All of us, regardless of skill level, are looking to improve but how can we best distinguish ourselves from one another?

We've seen in this video that winrate is a total joke of a stat yet people quote it for gospel all the time (even v successful "named" pros). I agree with you that ALL-IN EV also isn't gospel, however it is one way that can certainly indicate a level of run bad or run good as it's undeniable (unless the computer program is bugged) that whether or not you are winning or losing more than your share in ALL IN spots is an INDICATOR of how you're running over all. Of course it says nothing about how many times you cooler your opponents with AA > KK or set > set or how often the fish sits on your right in a 6m game or whether or not your shot taking goes good or bad and the hundreds of more subtle ways you can run good or run bad. There is no way to calculate it definitively.

IMO the best way to get an idea of your edge in the games you play is trying to identify as many spots as you can where you must be making $ (or saving $) long term. You see a reg miss a value bet you would make (vs yourself or vs another player). You see a reg go broke in a spot you wouldn't or bluff in a spot you wouldn't or whatever. Look for these situations and judge yourself. If you aren't sure, post about the spot on DC or ask a trusted friend his opinion. Sometimes other regs will be doing things you aren't doing but you should be. Other times they are playing like garbage. It's your job to distinguish between the two and the more spots you can say "I'm doing <THIS> better than most other regs in my games" then the more likely it is you have a solid edge. Along those lines, you want to look for as many different edges as you can find, whether it's taking better notes on videos you watch or eating right or exercising to induce optimal brain function or river checkraise bluffing in a spot most wouldn't, etc.

One of the toughest things about poker is that so many things aren't easily quantifiable, yet we must do our best to get an idea of what's right. Running good or bad is no different. Look for as many indicators as you can to determine why you are downswinging (or upswinging!).

WoT

I always can't help but wonder how much this variance, or in other words luck, is involved in who makes it to the higher stakes and who doesn't. I mean there are obviously lots of factors, but how much of this is variance? I mean even if you run 0.5BB over EV in like a million hands (this is often 1,5-2 years for a standard player) and this is very likely looking at these data.

It can be so much easier to look up and look at the game more positive also inducing you more to learn/study. I feel like results can have a very big influence in how much we study.

awesome awesome vid, definitely needed this, would have liked a little more focus on limit tho =/

Really great video and thanks for the site link very cool.

awesome awesome vid, definitely needed this, would have liked a little more focus on limit tho =/

maybe one of the limit guys could do a similar thing for the min bettors. I don't feel very qualified to comment on it specifically but many of the ideas of variance and swings carry over.

cause in soooo many reg threads on poker forums you get the omg I runbad and every reg whinges about it.......

the players who run way above their expectation won't post it, because then the people would say: "you suck, you are just a luckbox", and no one wants to admit that he got lucky over a big sample (even he is a very skilled player)

if you run below EV you can always say: "I don't win, because the others are luckier then me". Even it is somewhat true that others are luckier then you, the best thing you can do is to work on your game (oh, and I run 1,2bb/100 under EV over 1.3 million hands, guess I should work harder on it then everyone else ^^)

I definitely agree with you, but the live pros will say they get a higher winrate live than we can get online and therefore will have fewer swings (there is certainly an element of truth here) however there's also quite an element of survivorship bias in live pros. You never hear about the guys who get fed up or can't make it financially after months and months of breaking even/losing. They just slip away unnoticed unless there's a 2+2 NVG thread saying "what happened to x pro who won y tournament and has done nothing since". You hear a lot about the guys who can constantly make it playing the biggest stakes though and the people who win lots of tournaments. While it's certainly more likely the people you constantly hear about are quite a bit better than those you don't, there are going to be a good chunk of people who have run way above and way below their expectation.

It's a brutal world out there.

WoT

Crazy when you think about it actually.
A lot of the NL superstars we see have probably just ran in the top 5% of run good for their 1 to 2mil hands of poker.
Variance is so huge and sick in all aspects of poker not just all in ev. You can go through huge patches where you are constantly running into the top of peoples ranges. Getting JJ vs QQ, KK vs AA etc far more than your supposed to. People flopping sets vs you far more than they're supposed to. Your semi bluffs or draws not getting there on the turn and river far more then they're supposed to etc.

I remember saying this to myself when I made my first $20 deposit a few years ago: "If I lose this I will stop playing this game". Luckily for me I didn't start out with a 100K hand break-even stretch at nano stakes, or else I would not be playing this game today lol.

awesome awesome vid, definitely needed this

Absolutely. Really looking forward to the other philosophy type vids you mentioned Wilt.

Hey Wilt. I've been playing with the bankroll simulator and I wonder if having a large relative bankroll (# BIs) can be detrimental to your poker success at the low to midstakes.

Assuming you have good tilt control and you are a winning player (both substantial assumptions), having a 1kBB (lhe player) restriction means moving up is very slow. However, if you have a 500BB/level restriction allows you to move up quickly and make more money. I was just leaving it at the 1BB WR and 20BB SD. In fact, it even looks reasonable to have a 300BB BR and just be very willing to move down.

Would you say that a willingness to drop down would counteract a lot of the need for a larger bankroll, especially for a recreational player? I have seen similar things posted on 2p2 in the LHE forums advocating 300BB BRs (or less) for 6max as a way to optimally grow your BR, basically solved for from the Kelly Criterion using either the 1/2 or quarter kelly.

Of course, once you make it to the high stakes, you should then have a large bankroll in order to prevent yourself from needing to move down.

A similar thing happens when I try NL numbers (though I am not really a NL player). I would compare 20Bi to 50Bi and you'll see that you can grow a BR much faster with 20Bis and you can't really go broke as long as you're willing to move down. Tilt control obv. makes this key.

I guess I'm asking basically, if I have good tilt control, independent of the money, would you recommend I use a small BR?

Thanks for this Wilt, I would have liked if you covered cashing out strategy in detail, but maybe that could be another video?

I generally have a strategy of 100-50-25BI for the games I play spread over different stakes. I usually play 100NL and mix in 200 and 400NL games when I have more fish, 1 or more fish for playing 200NL and 2 or more fish for playing 400NL, what are you thoughts on playing across multiple stakes?

Hey Wilt. I've been playing with the bankroll simulator and I wonder if having a large relative bankroll (# BIs) can be detrimental to your poker success at the low to midstakes.

Assuming you have good tilt control and you are a winning player (both substantial assumptions), having a 1kBB (lhe player) restriction means moving up is very slow. However, if you have a 500BB/level restriction allows you to move up quickly and make more money. I was just leaving it at the 1BB WR and 20BB SD. In fact, it even looks reasonable to have a 300BB BR and just be very willing to move down.

Would you say that a willingness to drop down would counteract a lot of the need for a larger bankroll, especially for a recreational player? I have seen similar things posted on 2p2 in the LHE forums advocating 300BB BRs (or less) for 6max as a way to optimally grow your BR, basically solved for from the Kelly Criterion using either the 1/2 or quarter kelly.

Of course, once you make it to the high stakes, you should then have a large bankroll in order to prevent yourself from needing to move down.

A similar thing happens when I try NL numbers (though I am not really a NL player). I would compare 20Bi to 50Bi and you'll see that you can grow a BR much faster with 20Bis and you can't really go broke as long as you're willing to move down. Tilt control obv. makes this key.

I guess I'm asking basically, if I have good tilt control, independent of the money, would you recommend I use a small BR?

Yes you bring up very good points. I think I would file these ideas under the ability to rebuild your roll outside of poker. The lower the stakes you play, the more easily you can rebuild outside of poker from your job. The difference might be that someone who is a CEO of a company might be able to easily replenish a 5/10NL bankroll or a 100/200 LHE bankroll if he goes broke (and therefore can have a higher ROR and smaller bankroll) however the same might only apply for a guy who works at mcdonalds and plays 10c/25c NL or 5c/10c LHE etc.

Also, as you mentioned, being willing to move down is crucial as well. It's sort of like that slide where I was taking about mental strength, and the better your mental strength and the more you dont mind bouncing all over the place in stakes, the smaller of a roll you can handle. Some people just get their ego so tied up they think they are too good to play below X stakes and therefore don't move down and put themselves into jeopardy.

I will certainly bless you to have a smaller roll if you can easily rebuild from means outside of poker and/or you are willing to move down when necessary (as well as realizing that you're taking on a higher risk of ruin). It's all about the ability to stay in the action and not lose out on earning potential.

WoT

Thanks for this Wilt, I would have liked if you covered cashing out strategy in detail, but maybe that could be another video?

I generally have a strategy of 100-50-25BI for the games I play spread over different stakes. I usually play 100NL and mix in 200 and 400NL games when I have more fish, 1 or more fish for playing 200NL and 2 or more fish for playing 400NL, what are you thoughts on playing across multiple stakes?

I think this sounds totally reasonable.

I haven't put a lot of deep thought into cash out strategy, but I'd say trying to leave yourself a minimum roll of X buyins where you're comfortable with the idea of moving down to the lower stake to keep that # of buyins in tact. So it might be a working roll of 100bi for your main game, and at 75 buyins for your main game you drop down, if you keep losing then drop down at another 75 buyins for the game below that, etc

You have to think of your roll as at a specific state each time before you play and accept what sort of risk you're under.

Hopefully most pros have enough $ offline to live for at least 6 months without touching their roll. I realize that isn't always easy for those who are playing smaller stakes, but that's the goal we should be working towards.

WoT

awesome awesome vid, definitely needed this, would have liked a little more focus on limit tho =/

same here and would also be interested on some thoughts about BR management in 7/8 game.

Great video. I have one question. I am playing micro stakes at the moment and im wondering if you think that you should have MORE of a bankroll when multitableing 9 tables?
On my biggest losing days i lose around 5-10 buyins and on my biggest winning days i win from 10-15 buyins. And normal days it varies from 1-5 buyin swings

edit: i play a very aggro style inspired by Jay ) lots of threebet in poss with A/x suited etc

Great video. I have one question. I am playing micro stakes at the moment and im wondering if you think that you should have MORE of a bankroll when multitableing 9 tables?
On my biggest losing days i lose around 5-10 buyins and on my biggest winning days i win from 10-15 buyins. And normal days it varies from 1-5 buyin swings

edit: i play a very aggro style inspired by Jay ) lots of threebet in poss with A/x suited etc

assuming you can keep the same winrate, more tables shouldn't increase your variance but just to make sure you can have enough $ on the site to properly be on plenty of tables and wait lists to always be looking for the best games, you might need some extra $ in your account you wouldn't otherwise. Plus, the psychological aspect of having 1/3 of your roll on the tables (if you have 30 buyins or so) might be too much to bear, so erroring on the side of a bigger bankroll would probably be smart.

you could be grinding to appease your g-friend.... or you could be a girl grinding to appease your boyfriend
or you could be a girl grinding to appease your girlfriend!
haha classic!

Wowsers.

I want to never ever ever ever complain about running bad ever again. Try playing with the simulator on the looser end of the SD.

http://www.evplusplus.com/site_media/images/variance/wr_5.00_sd_130.00_nruns_100_nhands_1000000_False_mA48YX.png SD 130 WR 5bb/100 1M hands.

Top winner ~ 850bi's
Lowest ~ 40 bi's

60% of players with those stats go on a -60bi downswing

20% of players with those stats go on a -80bi downswing

Longest breakeven stretch 412k hands.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Great video WoT.

The variance graphs were so terrifying, I nearly quit poker on the spot!

Seriously though, it's quite clear that even at small stakes the edge you have over regs is pretty thin and as you point out this becomes thinner and thinner as you move up. Fewer fish too.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs? Is poker 90% luck and 10% skill, for us day-to-day grinders?

It seems to me all but the luckiest and the supremely gifted, are ultimately going to find themselves hovering around break-even at best over their poker lifetime.

I can't wait to watch this now

Great video WoT.

The variance graphs were so terrifying, I nearly quit poker on the spot!

Seriously though, it's quite clear that even at small stakes the edge you have over regs is pretty thin and as you point out this becomes thinner and thinner as you move up. Fewer fish too.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs? Is poker 90% luck and 10% skill, for us day-to-day grinders?

This vid has a delicate balance to it. On one hand, I don't want to depress people and make it sound like the only way to win is by running hot, but on the other hand I don't want people to sit back and say "oh well WoT said theres a lot of variance so my downswing probably isn't related to bad play"

I'm not sure I can say what % is luck vs skill, and even though some of those graphs were menacing the cream still does rise to the top generally. Even if I could put a % on it, I'm not so sure it would be that useful? We obviously know there is some of each, just by watching any of the vids by the instructors here we can see them outplaying people but also see them get sucked out on etc.

I focused on some of the outlier cases (guys at the way top and way bottom). Certainly on any given hand, luck plays a huge factor but as our samples get bigger, it does "even out" somewhat. The problem is that the long run is just so much longer than people realize and I hope that came through in the video.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs?

I suppose the way you could test this out would be fiddling with the standard deviation and the winrate numbers to see. Most of us will not be one of the outliers, so it is supremely important for us to scrap for every pot and make our disciplined folds and do all we can to increase our skill level. If we are somewhere in the middle along that dashed expectation line, then it becomes very important to increase our skill as much as possible. Also notice how important our mental stability must be. If we slip and aren't playing on our A game, thus causing our theoretical winrate to drop, just think of what awful things that does to the simulators!

It seems to me all but the luckiest and the supremely gifted, are ultimately going to find themselves hovering around break-even at best over their poker lifetime.

I understand how you could say this, but I don't think it's true. Yes variance has a big role, even after 100s of thousands of hands but it's not the only part. Most of us won't be those outliers (even though we feel like it) and being "supremely gifted" is a large part of just working hard. Keep in mind in those graphs, the dashed black line is the expected value line, not the break even line. There are a lot of guys chunked around there. Most of us will be in there and therefore need to do our best to increase that theoretical winrate and reduce those swings by outplaying everyone in our path!

I'm so glad I watched this video, learned quite a bit and found evplusplus. Wilt, you're the man.

Great video, Just been running some numbers interesting. Sure do need to up my winrate to stop risk of ruin.

Wow, that video officially scared the shit out of me.

Wow, that video officially scared the shit out of me.

In all seriousness, great video. Really makes me realize the importance of BR.

It also makes you wonder how you can ever be confident in your abilities?? Are you great or on a heater?? Do you suck or are you having negative variance??

Pretty crazy stuff.

In all seriousness, great video. Really makes me realize the importance of BR.

It also makes you wonder how you can ever be confident in your abilities?? Are you great or on a heater?? Do you suck or are you having negative variance??

Pretty crazy stuff.

i think you can be confident you have an edge but less confident on exactly what your edge is. It's why I put very little stock in winrates and suggest to my students that they remove the stat from their view on holdem manager.

Gaining confidence that you have an edge comes from learning, discussing, anticipating behavior from others and having it confirmed by showdown, correctly estimating ranges (not being surprised very often by hands that show up), correctly determining equity/correct action against those ranges, etc.

But your point is still worth while... people tend to be way more confident than they should be when it comes to what their edge is. Hopefully this video is a motivator to work as hard as possible

The mental part was the most inspiring one
The question regarding 7-game is really interesting, as if we take 500 big bets BR for limit games (5 out of 7 games) - very comfortable, it will be only 20 buy-ins for PLO and NLHE - not comfortable. Should we tend to move to the big bet games BR (30-50 BI) or stick to the limit games BRM?

The mental part was the most inspiring one
The question regarding 7-game is really interesting, as if we take 500 big bets BR for limit games (5 out of 7 games) - very comfortable, it will be only 20 buy-ins for PLO and NLHE - not comfortable. Should we tend to move to the big bet games BR (30-50 BI) or stick to the limit games BRM?

I don't think playing with only 20 buyins for nl/plo in the 7 game mix is horribly bad practice, but maybe it would be best to error on the high side. TBH I'm not really sure about the limit/mixed games, so I would fall back to trying to estimate what sort of edge you think you have in those rounds? If you feel like you're a lot better than your competition in the big bet games, then I wouldn't complain too much if you had 20-30 buyins for those rounds in a 7 game mix. If you feel like you are a dog in those rounds, maybe error on a bigger bankroll to help deal with the extra variance that a lower theoretical winrate will cause you.

If you feel like you're a lot better than your competition in the big bet games, then I wouldn't complain too much if you had 20-30 buyins for those rounds in a 7 game mix. If you feel like you are a dog in those rounds, maybe error on a bigger bankroll to help deal with the extra variance that a lower theoretical winrate will cause you.

Should have think about it this way earlier - the idea is sound.
I think another way to deal with it is to buy-in for a smaller amount and play short-stack or middle-stack strategy in big bet games.

Should have think about it this way earlier - the idea is sound.
I think another way to deal with it is to buy-in for a smaller amount and play short-stack or middle-stack strategy in big bet games.

Yes that is another good strategy I didn't consider.

how do you get a std. deviation of something like 80-120 for no limit holdem 6 max cashgames my Holdemmanager says I just have a 7.38bb/100 standard deviation. So that's not even close that much of deviation as you say>?

how do you get a std. deviation of something like 80-120 for no limit holdem 6 max cashgames my Holdemmanager says I just have a 7.38bb/100 standard deviation. So that's not even close that much of deviation as you say>?

uhh... weird. i suspect we are not looking at the same stat...

I found these links that most likely apply. It looks like HEM2 is displaying the stat differently:

http://forums.holdemmanager.com/general-support/194711-standard-deviation.html

http://forums.holdemmanager.com/general-support/162681-standard-deviation-plo.html

Good luck

yes that's me posting there yesterday in that thread. Hour after posting here I came with the good idea to check it in HM1 and at that moment I also got 74bb. But thanks for your good reply.

WoT that was a great video. I am a recreational casualty of black friday, at the time I was a staked mtt player. I undertand about running good and bad. My first real success at poker was in 45 man sngs on tilt. After I completed 500 $75 games I was ranked 3rd on the sharkscope rating. My next 50 I was neg 83% roi.

I put $300 on Carbon and now have ran it up to 3k. My goal is not to put more and have poker pay for vacation or 1k live mtt. I play mtts on the weekend. I work nights so my play during the week is limited by what is available. I used to be able to play Midnight madness and the turbo hundo plus a couple of 45s on tilt after work. The merge network is limited late at night so to get volume I need to play various different games.

My main focus will be mtts (with 45s mixed I dont need bankroll mgt for them as $10 is the biggest game), single table tourneys (9man turbo, 9man normal time), cash limit O8 and I might try to learn nlhe cash or plo or plo8.

What percentage of my bankroll can I responsiblely play in mtts on Sundays?

How do I balance a bankroll if I am playing multiple types of poker?

Do I separate my bankroll between mtts, sngs and cash if I want to make sure I earn (win) the right to move up? I have proven to be a winner at $100 mtts but do not have volume at $100 9mans or 5/10 limit or 200nl

What do you think of Jennifear's bankroll strategy?
http://www.pocketfives.com/blogs/jennifear/sng-mtt-br-management-cashout-strategy-585500/

i think her recommendations seem reasonable. She probably knows more about mtt/sng BR management than I do as I never really played that type of poker seriously.

she mentions paying yourself/cashing out based on volume not results, which I think is a good start, but if you start hitting a downswing and you play worse and you edge is lower, then you might be doing a disservice by simply cashing more and more out as you grind away more and more sngs. My point is that I usually tell people to always keep a minimum bankroll for a particular stake (following her guidelines should be reasonable) an then only take shots once you have enough for say 5-10 shots without it effecting the bankroll you need for your main games. So if your main games are $75 games and you're following her advice which is about 5k bankroll, an you want to take shots at the 100$ ames but you dont think you're ready to stay there "full time" then get 500-1k above your 5k bankroll and use that 5 to 10 buyins to take your shot. If at any time you get close to your original 5k roll which is sufficient for your main game (75$ games) then you back off the shot taking. Also, if you are on your cash out strategy and your next cashout is going to impact that 5k level, then you don't cash out and you go into rebuild mode.

Similar advice if you want to jump to cash games or play one of the big sunday tournaments. Never let one of those shots impact your risk of ruin in your main game, so never take any shot that would get you close to being underrolled for your primary game.

That would be my advice, but again I am not a sng/mtt player much, but this is the type of thing I did for cash games.