Fish & Variance

H8GHOTI

The fish are where you get your money from!

Just wondering, what are people's thoughts on the perfect number of fish to have at your table?

Take a 6 seat SNG for example. Do you think it's best to have 5 fish + yourself? Or 2 or 3 fish at the table that you can pick on?

The reason I ask is because I played a few SNGs tonight. The variance at a table full of fish is mad. Some of the play is dreadful, like play money tables tbh. Really bad players shoving with absolute sh!t. Like 4-betting all-in with K5o or the like, early on with 30BB+

So all you have to do is wait, be patient and when you have a decent hand call them. Simple. Problem is with 5 fish at the table, one of them is bound to get lucky and suckout on you.

Just tonight I lost:
QQ vs JJ AIPF as 80/20 favourite
AQ vs K9 All-in on the turn with a board of QJ79 as 80/20 favourite
QT vs 23 AIPF as 60/40 favourite
AA vs J7 All-in on a flop of 957 as 75/25 favourite
AQ vs 42s All-in on the turn with a board of 7xQhJhAx as 80/20 favourite

5 games in a row I lost when going in well ahead. Coinflips I can handle but this many clear favourites losing in such a short space of time done my head in. How normal is this? How many games/hands does it take to even out?

My results from tonight:
4 x $10 / One 2nd place, three nowheres (-$25)
2 x $20 / One 1st, one 2nd / (+$80)
1 x $30 / One 1st / (+$100)

It seems to me, less fish means less variance, means better results.
Small sample I know but this is something I've noticed in the past, not just tonight.

I know fish are good but are too many at the one table bad?

SuperHans

If you want to make money you want as many fish as possible at the table. Less fish means worse results. Either accept the variance or put your money in a savings account. You are gambling and will lose occasionally.

CHD

SuperHans wrote: »

If you want to make money you want as many fish as possible at the table. Less fish means worse results. Either accept the variance or put your money in a savings account. You are playing poker and will lose occasionally.

FYP

Conbro

Theres absolutey no logic to what you are saying. Its all about getting you dough in with favourable equity. You manage to get it in when 75%+ on 4 occassions. This wouldnt happen at higher levels, you'ld just get outplayed. Whether this is more painful or not is purely a matter of opinion.

Conbro

If you want to make money you want as many fish as possible at the table. Less fish means worse results. Either accept the variance or put your money in a savings account. You are playing poker and will lose occasionally.

His post didnt need to be fixed, its spot on. The sooner you accept that you're a degenerate gambler, the easier this painful existance becomes. Trust me on this one.

If there are no players at the table whom you consider to be a fish then you are the fish. Also, you are kind of showing a basic misunderstanding of mathematics. If you are an 80% favourite then you will lose 1 in every 5 times on average. It does not guarantee you a win to get it in ahead in that hand, it guarantees you a win over a sufficiently large sample so that short term mathematical variance does not skew the results.

So, either realise that embracing the variance is like breathing to a good poker player or just stop playing poker. Just remember this very simple mantra:

You want them to call. If they didn't get lucky they wouldn't come back. You want them to call.

RoundTower

some players, like NickyOD, find they play better against strong players. Perhaps you are among these elite masters of poker?

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote: »

some players, like NickyOD, find they play better against strong players. Perhaps you are among these elite masters of poker?

WTF?

You're some clown Dave. Way to get yet another dig at me into another thread.

Of course people play better against better opposition. Otherwise this is like saying Chelsea raise their game when they play Yeovil Town, but play poorly against Arsenal.

Of course playing against tards is more profitable, but that doesn't mean you're playing better poker.

H8GHOTI

Deleted User wrote: »

If there are no players at the table whom you consider to be a fish then you are the fish.

I've never been at a table like this.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, you are kind of showing a basic misunderstanding of mathematics. If you are an 80% favourite then you will lose 1 in every 5 times on average. It does not guarantee you a win to get it in ahead in that hand, it guarantees you a win over a sufficiently large sample so that short term mathematical variance does not skew the results.

I understand perfectly that I'm not guaranteed to win every hand when I go in ahead. But I should be winning 4 out of 5. (If I'm 80% favourite). I obviously don't remember the hands I won but it was less than 4 out of 5.

How long those it take for this to iron itself out? How long is a piece of string? Should I play one night and expect to win like 19 out of 20 of these situations?

H8GHOTI

RoundTower wrote: »

some players, like NickyOD, find they play better against strong players. Perhaps you are among these elite masters of poker?

Perhaps I am?

NickyOD wrote: »

WTF?

You're some clown Dave. Way to get yet another dig at me into another thread.

Of course people play better against better opposition. Otherwise this is like saying Chelsea raise their game when they play Yeovil Town, but play poorly against Arsenal.

Of course playing against tards is more profitable, but that doesn't mean you're playing better poker.

This makes sense.

The Al Lad

NickyOD wrote: »

WTF?

You're some clown Dave. Way to get yet another dig at me into another thread.


Of course people play better against better opposition. Otherwise this is like saying Chelsea raise their game when they play Yeovil Town, but play poorly against Arsenal.

But they don't ... they always hammer us:p

Ste05

H8GHOTI wrote: »

How long those it take for this to iron itself out? How long is a piece of string? Should I play one night and expect to win like 19 out of 20 of these situations?

A few million hands should show your results as pretty near to 80% wins. At 100,000 hands you'll be getting near to the correct amount, but forget about anything like 20 hands or something, you're literally talking about millions of hands to get a sufficient number of 80:20's for the Variance to start to even out.

Think about a line of 10,000,000,000 hands, all 80:20. Of those 8,000,000,000 will have us winning and 2,000,000,000 will have us losing, now mix up all those hands and it would easily be possible to have a single string of 100 consecutive losses contained within, and there's nothing to say that that string of 100 consecutive losses isn't at the very start.

Basically to begin to truly understand Variance you have to think in huge numbers and truly just forget about what any 1 or 2 or 10 results were because they are completely meaningless. You will win 80% of the time but you could be in a string of 100 consecutive losses, or even 6 or 5 or maybe in a string of 100 consecutive wins, etc. etc. it's all about how you run... variance is a complete cnut!!

dannydiamond

Ste05 wrote: »

variance is a complete cnut!!

You speak the truth oh wise one.
This especially rings true for stts where the cnutish nature of variance is really highlighted.

If I was anyway competent with all this imageshack stuff I could show you a couple of stt graphs that look like mountain ranges.

H8GHOTI

Ste05 wrote: »

A few million hands should show your results as pretty near to 80% wins. At 100,000 hands you'll be getting near to the correct amount, but forget about anything like 20 hands or something, you're literally talking about millions of hands to get a sufficient number of 80:20's for the Variance to start to even out.

Think about a line of 10,000,000,000 hands, all 80:20. Of those 8,000,000,000 will have us winning and 2,000,000,000 will have us losing, now mix up all those hands and it would easily be possible to have a single string of 100 consecutive losses contained within, and there's nothing to say that that string of 100 consecutive losses isn't at the very start.

Basically to begin to truly understand Variance you have to think in huge numbers and truly just forget about what any 1 or 2 or 10 results were because they are completely meaningless. You will win 80% of the time but you could be in a string of 100 consecutive losses, or even 6 or 5 or maybe in a string of 100 consecutive wins, etc. etc. it's all about how you run... variance is a complete cnut!!

Thanks Ste, very good explanation.

mormank

Ste05 wrote: »

A few million hands should show your results as pretty near to 80% wins. At 100,000 hands you'll be getting near to the correct amount, but forget about anything like 20 hands or something, you're literally talking about millions of hands to get a sufficient number of 80:20's for the Variance to start to even out.

Think about a line of 10,000,000,000 hands, all 80:20. Of those 8,000,000,000 will have us winning and 2,000,000,000 will have us losing, now mix up all those hands and it would easily be possible to have a single string of 100 consecutive losses contained within, and there's nothing to say that that string of 100 consecutive losses isn't at the very start.

Basically to begin to truly understand Variance you have to think in huge numbers and truly just forget about what any 1 or 2 or 10 results were because they are completely meaningless. You will win 80% of the time but you could be in a string of 100 consecutive losses, or even 6 or 5 or maybe in a string of 100 consecutive wins, etc. etc. it's all about how you run... variance is a complete cnut!!

ha. so basically its all luck then...'variance' is such a bitchhh. some people are just luckier. alot of people can play the game the same. its just how we run...this is such a silly game. hope i never attempt to take it up professionally in the future cos id hate to have to play over ten billion hands before i get my fair share..

RoundTower

btw I don't think bad players can increase your variance in sit and goes, but I might be wrong.

YULETIRED

RoundTower wrote: »

btw I don't think bad players can increase your variance in sit and goes, but I might be wrong.

table selection + good poker = profit. if you continiuosly play agianst the same standard of player variance cannot be increased or decreased....it's just there.....like the weather...

if you move down, they might not have the ability to take best advantage of your bad luck.....

DubTony

Ste05 wrote: »

Think about a line of 10,000,000,000 hands, all 80:20. Of those 8,000,000,000 will have us winning and 2,000,000,000 will have us losing, now mix up all those hands and it would easily be possible to have a single string of 100 consecutive losses contained within, and there's nothing to say that that string of 100 consecutive losses isn't at the very start.

What about this? Is it possible that someone who supposedly studies the game and claims to learn could be so bad as to have results like this or is it variance? Thats over 1100 $5 STTs for a profit of about a tenner? Is the sample too small?

SuperHans

I think 1100 stts is a pretty good representation of how profitable you are in the game(assuming 10 or 6 man sngs). There's a pretty good chance(let's say about 85%, though this is just conjecture) that the owner of that graph is a breakeven or very marginal winner or loser in the game.
That is to say that there isn't very much evidence to suggest that this player can achieve a decent roi at his/her current level of ability in this game.
Saying that, I don't really know the true variability in these games.(I like to sit on the fence)

NickyOD

DubTony wrote: »

What about this? Is it possible that someone who supposedly studies the game and claims to learn could be so bad as to have results like this or is it variance? Thats over 1100 $5 STTs for a profit of about a tenner? Is the sample too small?

It's more than enough for $5 STTs IMO but not for the $100s. It also depends a little on whether or not these are super turbos.

One of the best players I play against ran bad for about 1400 STTs at the $100+9 level and the biggest winner on iPoker recently went on a 25K downswing.