dont flame me.....

[ils15]

Hi,

I just turned 18 and finally ready to play online poker for real money. My brother is 24 and hes been playing since he was 16. He plays high stakes. I guess I am pretty lucky that I have him but he said that it will be really hard for me to build a bankroll now unless I started at say 50nl(no knowledge of poker). He has told me that, before, when it was the golden age, it was very easy to build a roll. I didn't believe him.

I plan on starting with 2k which my brother is giving to me of course. He suggested to learn the basics of nano plo and then just play straight at 50plo while he coach me.

I wanted to start with sng first but he said it wasn't worth it. Before 2007, he said that a 20$ single table sng on stars took only 3-6 minutes to finish. Is there any truth to this? He couldn't show any proof because he didn't play sngs or tournaments but I prefer to start off with sngs.



Is it true that it took 3 minutes to finish a 20$ sng a few years ago?


sorry english is my third language.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sorry. Why does it make any difference if some SNG's from 5 years ago were like that or not?

I've played SNG's where sitting out (folding every hand) was enough to money in the event. I can easily imagine a situation where everyone goes all in on the first hand and it's over in 30 seconds.

[ils15]

I'm sorry. Why does it make any difference if some SNG's from 5 years ago were like that or not?

I've played SNG's where sitting out (folding every hand) was enough to money in the event. I can easily imagine a situation where everyone goes all in on the first hand and it's over in 30 seconds.

I'm weighing in my opportunity cost on doing this and considering what my brother is telling me.

so you are saying that there are still tables where everybody go all in first hand? Because that's not what I was told. It was long gone those days.

I don't understand your point if there was any?

[Icanhastreebet]

Starting at a stake that's a huge rake trap is going to be bankroll suicide unless you run above expectation. Also 40BI is no where near enough for any PLO game.

[OngBonga]

Also 40BI is no where near enough for any PLO game.

That sounds like a challenge.

[Icanhastreebet]

10bb winner over 100k hands. 40BI is not enough. I promise.

[OngBonga]

That graph is frightening. I reckon one could build a bankroll at $2 PLO though starting with $20, morons can't fold nine high flush with fucking trips on the board, and they play AAxx like the nuts. Anything above $2PLO and I don't doubt you at all, I've been flirting with $25 PLO zoom the last week or so, and the swings can be brutal, I've lost 4BI in under ten minutes to wipe out four day's profit. I was gonna walk if I hit $500 BR (currently around $600) but I think I'll walk after seeing that graph. Thanks for saving me $100.

May challenge... play 20k hands at $2PLO, win at least 10bb/100 without dropping below -10BI.

Should be fun.

[Icanhastreebet]

Micro plo is unbeatable due to rake btw. Maybe playing at 250bb deep it's beatable but I can't confirm this. I'm guessing you have to avoid playing a lot of hands that would normally be fine but become losers due to rake etc.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In your graph, all 10 trials finished below EV. What are the odds of that? When I put in the same numbers on the website, I get a much more balanced graph as far as variance above 10bb/100 and below. I hit submit a bunch of times and I never got a result as negatively skewed as the one you posted. But all that is easily attributed to variance,

Where did you get the sd = 270 bb/100 ?? Is this a common value for a winning PLO player w/ a winrate of 10 bb/100? What would the number be for a NLHE player with the same winrate?

[gotigers1234]

I am new to poker too...but I can tell you this is a horrible idea. Take 200 bucks and play 2nl on stars for 100k hands or so and reassess the situation. If you are crushing it you can move on. But your plan will fail most likely.

[Icanhastreebet]

In your graph, all 10 trials finished below EV. What are the odds of that? When I put in the same numbers on the website, I get a much more balanced graph as far as variance above 10bb/100 and below. I hit submit a bunch of times and I never got a result as negatively skewed as the one you posted. But all that is easily attributed to variance,

Where did you get the sd = 270 bb/100 ?? Is this a common value for a winning PLO player w/ a winrate of 10 bb/100? What would the number be for a NLHE player with the same winrate?

Standard deviation doesn't really change no matter what your winrate. 6m Hold em it's about 80bb/100, FR it's about 70bb/100, 6m PLO it's 270bb/100. Also even though you see a more balanced graph I would assume you still see a lot of 40+BI downswings.

[Robb]

Standard deviation doesn't really change no matter what your winrate. 6m Hold em it's about 80bb/100, FR it's about 70bb/100, 6m PLO it's 270bb/100. Also even though you see a more balanced graph I would assume you still see a lot of 40+BI downswings.

The standard deviation can change (slightly) depending upon aggression, how machine-like you are at the tables, and other factors like the other players' styles and how much you tilt, etc. My 6m NLHE s.d. was always closer to 95bb/100. I would think the above estimates are conservative.

I don't have any PT/HEM stats for Omaha, but confirm from experience all the statements above, including that the rake is absolutely killer at the micro PLO tables.

[jyms]

That's always something I've wondered about. How can you decrease your Std dev. I have always had mine at 95+ and this last two months regrinding micros it's well over 100 in the last 50K hands

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's always something I've wondered about. How can you decrease your Std dev. I have always had mine at 95+ and this last two months regrinding micros it's well over 100 in the last 50K hands

Standard deviation is low when the values in the sample are all close together. If you want a small standard deviation, you would avoid all big pots. Big wins and losses are outliers from the average, the further from the average the greater the effect. (You can't avoid small pots, since most pots are folded pre-flop, winning 0 bb/100)

Or does this stdev only include VPIP hands? Either way, you want the amount you win to be as close to the same (your average) every time as possible for a low std dev. Of course, eliminating as many negative values from the set will help, too (losses are BAD), since your average is hopefully positive.

stdev = sqrt( sum( ( x - mu )^2 )/( n - 1 ) )

x is each individual value in the data sample
mu is the mean (average) value of the sample
n is the number of data elements in the sample

[Robb]

Poker-wise, I have high variance because I'm agro, love to gamble, and tilt hard. I play big pots. When I'm playing well, I win more than I lose. But it's still high variance.

It's also a willingness to play on the flop and turn, even after 3bets pre, building medium-sized pots more often. Anything that generates larger pots increases the variance. Of course, high variance isn't a problem if I'm winning...

[rong]

This turned in to an interesting thread. Someone should rename title so others can find for future reference.

Where do you find your sd on hm? Is it just an option you can add to your stats like everything else?

[Robb]

This turned in to an interesting thread. Someone should rename title so others can find for future reference.

Where do you find your sd on hm? Is it just an option you can add to your stats like everything else?

I'm confused. I think the graph you're asking about is a simulation, based upon reasonable assumptions about winrates/sd's.

You can track standard deviations in HEM. I suppose it's there for opponents, but it's not "useful," in the sense that it doesn't tell you about a leak or how to improve. It tells you what you can expect over time (like the simulation) even if you're a winning player.

[rong]

I'm just curious what my SD is over the sample I've played.