Win Rates & Standard Deviations & Your Edge

RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
I just finished reading Fortune's Formula. It discussed, among other things, the optimal betting strategy called the Kelly Criterion. Basically, the Kelly Criterion says to bet the amount of your bankroll that is your edge. Figuring out your edge seems a bit tricky, but if my research has been accurate, the equation is:

Winrate = Standard Dev.* (2p-1), where p is your expected probabilty of winning.

So according to my calculations, at .02/05nl, my winrate is 8.81bbs/100 and my standard deviation is 69.11 (found in HEM). Solving for p, I find that I have an edge 12.7% at these stakes.

To calculate the ideal bankroll, we use the formula:

B = SD^2/(Kelly fraction * winrate), so mine is 69.11^2/(1*8.81) = 542 bbs. That's only about $27.

Some people like to bet less than the Kelly amount to be safer due to the uncertainties of these estimates, so say a 1/2 Kelly bet would require a bankroll of 69.11^2/(1/2*8.81) = 1084 bbs. A 1/2 Kelly bet is supposed to grow at 75% the maximum growth rate, but offer 50% less risk.

The key with the Kelly formula is that your bets get bigger as you win, but smaller as you lose. Your risk of ruin is supposed to be zero as long as you can keep reducing your bets, but realistically you can lose practically everything. There is a 50% chance using Kelly that your bankroll will fall to 50% of it's current level, and a 10% chance that it will fall to 10% of current. But overall, your rate of growth will be optimized. If you bet more than the Kelly bet, say, like double, you will almost surely go broke (or close to it).

I'm not too good at math, and it took me forever to figure out this much, so if anyone sees any errors, please let me know.
 
W

WurlyQ

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Total posts
760
Chips
0
Summary: The Kelly criterion is impractical for most poker players due to the uncertainty of the inputs and due to the inability of most people to stick to strict rules. However, it does allow for substantial upside so assuming you can be both realistic and conservative in your upside values and that you can stick to strict guidelines, it may be worth a flyer.

**Disclaimer: I'm not too knowledgeable in this subject but math threads generally don't get too much love in these forums so I thought I would chime in. I have never actually done the math myself so take my words with a grain of salt. **

Explanation: The Kelly criterion, while mathematically correct, has two primary issues when it comes to poker:

-The biggest reason is that the the inputs (true winrate and standard deviation) are both largely unknown and vary from table to table.
-You must be very stringent in moving down when you hit your breakpoint to move down, something harder than most people think due to common human psychology.

I think most people say that you need at least 100K hands at a limit before your winrate starts to converge to a value with reasonable confidence. By the time you play this many hands, you will generally have a roll that far exceeds the Kelly criterion or you will have moved up to a higher limit. Also, if you do some sensitivity analysis, you will find that the Kelly criterion is highly sensitive to your true winrate. For anyone looking to implement the Kelly criterion into their BRM, I would recommend that they consider the following due to the inherint risks associated:

-Run some tests with different input values (winrate and SD) and see what sort of outputs you get. This will give you an idea of how much this criterion changes as your winrate varies.
-When implementing, use a very very conservative winrate value. Even if you are trully an 8bb/100 player, you will not be an 8bb/100 player at every single table you play.
-Be conservative when establishing breakpoints to move down
-Most people (and I mean like 99.9% of people who play poker including myself) have never seen a true downswing and are unaware of the kind of tilt that this causes. Some people may think that they are tilt free but the reality is that almost everyone tilts when they go through downswings that they thought were mathematically impossible.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Thanks for the reply. I had a feeling that my post wouldn't generate much interest. :D

You bring up a lot of good points. I haven't figured out where the breakpoints would be to move up or down, but I know you need to continually recalculate to make sure your bet is optimal.

In practice, my guess is that you buy in for the Kelly amount at a table that is within your range, rather than always buying in for 100bb. I wouldn't want to try this with my current bankroll, since that would put me at around .25/.50nl tables and I haven't even advanced past .02/.05.

It might be fun to try at another site. I could deposit a small amount and see what happens using Kelly as my bankroll management tool.

Running my .01/.02nl stats into a variance spreadsheet, it looks like an average return over 100K hands would be somewhere around 200 buy-ins. I've lost the link to that spreadsheet, but it was mentioned in another thread here at CC.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
The other side of the coin is that even when you know your variance value it will be an average value.

Your actual variance will also depend upon the variance of your opponent.

You will suffer more varience against someone who plays a high variance style than someone who plays a low-variance style.


These concepts make sense in theory and allow you to have some idea how variables interact with each other, but its near impossible to get values which are of use in specific situations.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Currently: 16-20 tabling $10 DoN or 2 tabling NL10 6max (more learning less playing)

I'm also thinking of moving to NL10 6 max. How does your winrate and SDev. compare to your rates at NL5 6 max?
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
The other side of the coin is that even when you know your variance value it will be an average value.

Your actual variance will also depend upon the variance of your opponent.

You will suffer more varience against someone who plays a high variance style than someone who plays a low-variance style.


These concepts make sense in theory and allow you to have some idea how variables interact with each other, but its near impossible to get values which are of use in specific situations.

Yeah, the variance spreadsheet shows just how huge the swings can be, especially if you have a low win rate. I guess the best you can do is just take extremely conservative guesses and average many trials in the spreadsheet to get a rough idea of your bet size. Betting 1/2 Kelly accomplishes some of this.
 
W

WurlyQ

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Total posts
760
Chips
0
I'm also thinking of moving to NL10 6 max. How does your winrate and SDev. compare to your rates at NL5 6 max?

I jumped straight into 10NL so I don't know. A few generalized 10NL pointers that you may find useful:

-People either call too much, fold too much, or bet too large. If you can identify this and exploit it (i.e. know when to preflop raise / cbet vs weak players, value bet vs calling stations, or nut peddle against a maniac), 10NL should be a piece of cake.
-If bad players bet big on the river, they generally have it. You can generally call light on rivers against smaller bets if draws miss and their bet makes no sense.
-Do not bluff stations. No matter how believable your betting, stations will sometimes call with as little as 3rd pair (granted I'm borderline LAG so maybe I am less believable but at 10NL, i doubt image matters too much)
 
S

smiso24

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Total posts
2
Chips
0
Original poster states "So according to my calculations, at .02/05nl, my winrate is 8.81bbs/100 and my standard deviation is 69.11 (found in HEM). Solving for p, I find that I have an edge 12.7% at these stakes."

If your edge is 12.7% then wouldn't that be the fraction of your bankroll to bet? So if you're buying in full at $5 no limit, then wouldn't you want to have a bankroll of ($5/.127) = $39.37 ?

Just my thought on the matter. I could be wrong.
 
Emrald Onyxx

Emrald Onyxx

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Total posts
106
Chips
0
I really wish I unsderstood what is being said.........

But I don't.


dunce_full.jpg
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Original poster states "So according to my calculations, at .02/05nl, my winrate is 8.81bbs/100 and my standard deviation is 69.11 (found in HEM). Solving for p, I find that I have an edge 12.7% at these stakes."

If your edge is 12.7% then wouldn't that be the fraction of your bankroll to bet? So if you're buying in full at $5 no limit, then wouldn't you want to have a bankroll of ($5/.127) = $39.37 ?

Just my thought on the matter. I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think that is right, but you don't really have to limit yourself to only buying in full. I could buy in at $3.43 at the 5nl tables and be within the Kelly formula guideline. It's been awhile since I've looked at this, but I'm about to experiment with it on Full Tilt after I get the $50 Take 2 bonus.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
I really wish I unsderstood what is being said.........

But I don't.

Ha, nice picture! That's how I felt when I first read about it. Just stubborn enough to try to understand it. :)
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
Original poster states "So according to my calculations, at .02/05nl, my winrate is 8.81bbs/100 and my standard deviation is 69.11 (found in HEM). Solving for p, I find that I have an edge 12.7% at these stakes."

If your edge is 12.7% then wouldn't that be the fraction of your bankroll to bet? So if you're buying in full at $5 no limit, then wouldn't you want to have a bankroll of ($5/.127) = $39.37 ?

Just my thought on the matter. I could be wrong.

Having an edge doesn't outweigh short term variance. If you're all in pf w AA for 100bb's and get called by QQ, you've made the right play - but you're going to lose all 100bb's if no A hits the boad but a Q does... Sadly, this general scenario (got your whole stack in while a strong favorite to take the pot) can happen several times in a row.

My point is simply that if you run normally, yeah, this makes sense - but nobody runs exactly statistically normally...
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
That's why you have to constantly readjust your bets. Short-term negative variance will make you reduce your bet size, but your risk of ruin will remain the same. Short-term positive variance will allow you to increase your bet size as well. Overall, the goal is optimal bankroll growth given a certain (small) allowable risk of ruin. (I so don't play this way -- as you know, I'm a complete bankroll nit, but I think I'll try it on Full Tilt with my $50 bonus).
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
That's why you have to constantly readjust your bets. Short-term negative variance will make you reduce your bet size, but your risk of ruin will remain the same. Short-term positive variance will allow you to increase your bet size as well.

This is a mistake. Whether you're running hot or cold has zero impact on the optimal play for your current hand. Repeat after me - LUCK IS A MYTH. Everything is statistical probability, and if you flip heads 10 times in a row, it does NOT mean that the next flip has to be heads or tails (I'm ignoring the rigged coin).

Don't change your bet sizing based on how you're running.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Huh? I'm not talking about in general that you should do this. I'm trying to explain the Kelly Criterion, which is a method to optimally increase your bankroll. If you run bad, in order not to risk ruin, you have to decrease your bet size. If you run good, then you get to increase the bet. That's the way it works.

Like I said, I don't know how it will work in poker, but I think I'm going to give it a try with some bonus money, so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it doesn't work out. It's an experiment. Several people say you can't apply the Kelly Criterion to poker, but I think that you probably can.
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
Huh? I'm not talking about in general that you should do this. I'm trying to explain the Kelly Criterion, which is a method to optimally increase your bankroll. If you run bad, in order not to risk ruin, you have to decrease your bet size. If you run good, then you get to increase the bet. That's the way it works.

Like I said, I don't know how it will work in poker, but I think I'm going to give it a try with some bonus money, so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it doesn't work out. It's an experiment. Several people say you can't apply the Kelly Criterion to poker, but I think that you probably can.

Ah, sorry about that, I misunderstood the basic premise, I thought this was about bi's rather than bets - my bad. I looked at wikipedia for an explanation, now I think I get it. If I get it, I'm definitely in the camp that thinks this is inapplicable to poker, largely cuz I don't think poker is the same as other forms of gambling.

Luck (in the sense that you're dependent on what cards you're dealt and hit the board) is definitely a part of poker, but not in the sense that it is in blackjack (casual blackjack, not talking about professional card counting), slots, craps, roulette, horse racing, etc. If you're purely playing your cards and making hands, then yeah, it's not far from those other types of gambling. But since you're playing against people and have tools to influence the outcomes of your bets independently of your cards (i.e., by influencing how villains play), I don't see this as the same as the other activities.

Since the size of your bets is one of the basic tools you have to influence outcomes, basing bet sizing on the Kelly Criterion seems to me to be a bad idea, it decreases your ability to influence the other players on the one hand. On the other hand, if you have a 60/40 scenario in your favor, making your bet size smaller than all in because of your perceived edge also seems to me to be a mistake.
 
W

WurlyQ

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Total posts
760
Chips
0
Ah, sorry about that, I misunderstood the basic premise, I thought this was about bi's rather than bets - my bad. I looked at wikipedia for an explanation, now I think I get it. If I get it, I'm definitely in the camp that thinks this is inapplicable to poker, largely cuz I don't think poker is the same as other forms of gambling.

Luck (in the sense that you're dependent on what cards you're dealt and hit the board) is definitely a part of poker, but not in the sense that it is in blackjack (casual blackjack, not talking about professional card counting), slots, craps, roulette, horse racing, etc. If you're purely playing your cards and making hands, then yeah, it's not far from those other types of gambling. But since you're playing against people and have tools to influence the outcomes of your bets independently of your cards (i.e., by influencing how villains play), I don't see this as the same as the other activities.

Since the size of your bets is one of the basic tools you have to influence outcomes, basing bet sizing on the Kelly Criterion seems to me to be a bad idea, it decreases your ability to influence the other players on the one hand. On the other hand, if you have a 60/40 scenario in your favor, making your bet size smaller than all in because of your perceived edge also seems to me to be a mistake.

The Kelly Criterion has nothing to do with bet sizing other than the fact that it affects the two inputs (win rate and standard deviation).

The Kelly Criterion is a bankroll management tool that gives you the optimal bankroll size to maximize bankroll growth for any limit given that you have a true win rate and standard deviation. Thus, you can change nothing about the way you currently play, and the Kelly Criterion will spit out how much you need in your bankroll to play a certain limit given that you can freely move up and down.

The Kelly Criterion has no problems with it on a theoretical level but it's relatively impractical for the reasons I outlined in the previous post I made in this thread.
 
Double-A

Double-A

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Total posts
787
Chips
0
The Kelly Criterion has nothing to do with bet sizing other than the fact that it affects the two inputs (win rate and standard deviation).

I think Kelly's whole question was; given your edge, your current bankroll, and your odds how much should you bet for optimal bankroll growth?
 
W

WurlyQ

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Total posts
760
Chips
0
I think Kelly's whole question was; given your edge, your current bankroll, and your odds how much should you bet for optimal bankroll growth?

The "bet" here is how much you sit down at the table with, not how much you "bet" on given streets.

Edit: Actually my statement is lol... Give me a second to organize my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Double-A

Double-A

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Total posts
787
Chips
0
I just finished reading Fortune's Formula. It discussed, among other things, the optimal betting strategy called the Kelly Criterion.

I think Nassim Taleb might have a bone to pick with you about how "optimal" it is to use incremental statistical knowledge to calculate risk exposure.;)
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
OK, I'm just confused. If this is how big your br needs to be to play a specific limit, it makes sense to me, but the word "bet" is confusing the heck out of me.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
I think Nassim Taleb might have a bone to pick with you about how "optimal" it is to use incremental statistical knowledge to calculate risk exposure.;)

I'm not familiar with him, but after a quick Google, I think I just discovered my next read. Thanks!

The "bet" here is how much you sit down at the table with, not how much you "bet" on given streets.

Edit: Actually my statement is lol... Give me a second to organize my thoughts.

Buy-in amount is how I intend to try to apply it. I'll need to recalculate based on changes in overall win rate and standard deviation, and I'll have to accept the uncertainties if I'm able to move up quickly (without win rate evidence). At some point, I'll reach a level where I have no or a negative edge; then the answer is not to play.
 
W

WurlyQ

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Total posts
760
Chips
0
Buy-in amount is how I intend to try to apply it. I'll need to recalculate based on changes in overall win rate and standard deviation, and I'll have to accept the uncertainties if I'm able to move up quickly (without win rate evidence). At some point, I'll reach a level where I have no or a negative edge; then the answer is not to play.

I understand exactly what you're doing, and I know that bankroll management is the crux of this thread. However, my statement about how much to sit down with, while probably the best way to think about what the "bet" in the Kelly Criterion is, is technically incorrect in referring to the "bet" as outlined in the Kelly Criterion (if you've read enough of my posts, you've probably realized how much I dislike incorrect statements, especially making them :p). I explain this below.

Also, this didn't occur to me before because I just gave you brief conclusions on what I recalled from several months earlier, but you need to consider that there are not infinite limits below the limit you are playing which is what would make the Kelly Criterion optimal (or the probability of going busto = 0). As a corollary to this, in determining the optimal bankroll size, you do not factor in your win rate and standard deviation at 2nl which would most likely further reduce the size of your bankroll needed. The value you give in your OP gives a value assuming your 2nl win rate and standard deviation is equivalent to that of your 5nl win rate. However, keep in mind that there are no limits below 2nl so you have to put a very very very conservative number on your 2nl win rate (which may very well be your 5nl win rate).

---

Okay, I needed to recollect some thoughts and review a thread (another forum so I can't link) because it's been about 5 months since I last thought about this topic in depth (post I made two months ago was based on general conclusions from before).

OK, I'm just confused. If this is how big your br needs to be to play a specific limit, it makes sense to me, but the word "bet" is confusing the heck out of me.

Very quickly, the Kelly criterion is discussed as a bankroll management tool ("how big your br needs to be to play a specific limit") in order to maximize the growth rate of your bankroll.

It is not how much to "bet" on any given street in a poker hand because you do not have a probability distribution of winning and losing money on any given street (except the river) because the hand may or may not be over. It is assuming that for any given hand, there is some probability distribution of how much you win or lose in any given hand.

Win rate and standard deviation are used to characterize this probability distribution. The reason why win rate and standard deviation is an appropriate model is based on sample size and through the use of the Central Limit Theorem (I'm not 100% convinced of this because of an independence of observations issue but apparently it's widely accepted so I'll follow the crowd). If anyone is interested and has a fairly good understanding of statistical theorems, I can explain but I'm sure 99.9% of this forum won't care.

The statement I made about "bet" being how much you sit down with is incorrect but it is probably the easiest way to think about what the "bet" is if you want to characterize it in the Kelly Criterion. Technically, it is the sum of all bets made in any given hand, but the Kelly Criterion as applied here makes no effort to determine bet sizing on individual streets so it is best to think of how much you "risk" as the amount you sit down with which is how much you "risk" in any given hand.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
The value you give in your OP gives a value assuming your 2nl win rate and standard deviation is equivalent to that of your 5nl win rate. However, keep in mind that there are no limits below 2nl so you have to put a very very very conservative number on your 2nl win rate (which may very well be your 5nl win rate).

Actually, I used 5nl numbers throughout, but 5nl derived from pokerstars, so it will be interesting to see how that compares to Full Tilt. Seems like FT players are a bit worse at the same levels.

Incidently, my edge at 2nl calculates out to 19.5%. Coincidentally, I've played almost exactly 60,000 hands at each of the three levels I've tried in my short career :rolleyes: , 2nl, 5nl, and 10nl. At 10nl, my edge is practically nothing, so it's only useful to play for bonus points or rakeback :D (or to try to get better -- lots of room for that, hehe).
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
Technically, it is the sum of all bets made in any given hand, but the Kelly Criterion as applied here makes no effort to determine bet sizing on individual streets so it is best to think of how much you "risk" as the amount you sit down with which is how much you "risk" in any given hand.

Effectively, we're talking about capping exposure in any given pot then by capping the bi amount?

This doesn't guide us in br size to play a limit, does it? In other words, for any given pot, I shouldn't exceed value x for the bi when I sit down at a table (x being calculated according to the formulas above), but it doesn't tell me whether I should sit down at the table at all, instead of a lower limit table? I mean, in theory, I can sit down w $5.87 at a 50nl table if that's the fraction of my bankroll that's optimal to "bet" given my calculated edge and current br size at the table, even if I'm better off sitting at a 10nl table fully stacked?

I'm still thinking that this whole idea works against playing good poker. Capping exposure by capping bi's affects SPR, playable hands, and the ability to run high variance plays like semi-bluffing.

Intellectually interesting discussion nonetheless.
 
Top