How do people get such consistent graphs

B

BlueNowhere

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Total posts
4,234
Chips
0
Just played somebody and looked him up, confirmed loser HU and his recent HU games were $3.50 hypers. Even if they played $1.50 games I don't known about (min stake) how do they have so little variance over 200 games?

TotalProfitByGamesPlayed


My graph over similar sample size at same stake for comparison of variance:

TotalProfitByGamesPlayed


It got me thinking, do bad player suffer from less variance than winning players? Lets say I have a 5% ROI and they have a -5%, logic would say that their graph would be a mirror image if mine, yes? Surely they should suffer the same level of variance just in reverse. If I win 30BI and lose 25BI in consecutive sessions they should be the opposite, should they not.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
Lagtards don't have variance. They play til they lose and then try to win it back and lose some more.
 
B

BlueNowhere

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Total posts
4,234
Chips
0
Lagtards don't have variance. They play til they lose and then try to win it back and lose some more.

Surely in a hyper SnG it's pretty much impossible to not show variance though? Most players play pretty laggy and most losing players have variance of sorts. This is the first one I've seen that actually managed to completely avoid variance.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
I don't know about those sng's, but I've looked up a lot of players at micro stakes that i've played and their graphs look like that.

Those are the "net depositing" players that bodog just loves.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
I don't get you.

Theres is a gradual losing graph, because he's a losing player. Varience still plays a part obviously but if they are a losing player, it's unlikely to ever spike up and down by much, just be going down at the rate it is doing.

Every 50 games he's losing like $50.00.

When you look at your graph and you see your first spike at 150 games then the downward spiral of like -$50.00 over the next 50 games or so? Well, that's his graph, consistently though. When you look at the other guys graph, he wins the occasionally 1 or 2 or maybe 3,4,5 in a row but that's as good as it gets, so the rest is just a nice downward spiral so varience isn't really ever happening is it's consistently one result (losing) where as a winning player will consistly win, but because of players like him, and you get lots of them, they make the downswing's happen like in your graph.

By the way, try looking at his long term graph, rather than 200 games.
 
Last edited:
B

BlueNowhere

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Total posts
4,234
Chips
0
I don't get you.

Theres is a gradual losing graph, because he's a losing player. Varience still plays a part obviously but if they are a losing player, it's unlikely to ever spike up and down by much, just be going down at the rate it is doing.

Every 50 games he's losing like $50.00.

By the way, try looking at his long term graph, rather than 200 games.

Yes but my point is that just because he is a losing player shouldn't mean he avoids variance. In fact if he has the same ROI as me only -ve then there graph should be similar but a mirror to mine. Over a small sample size these swings should be even more pronounced.

Just because he is a losing player does not mean it will never spike up and down by much. He should still see some variance.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
Well, how can variance effect a losing player?

If you get it in bad a vast majority of the time, then there is only one result over time, a consist losing graph no spikes, even for run good because you get it in so bad so often.


Wheres the varience even for this losing player blue? ;)

To me, he never has any sort of spike, in ANY form and even SnG's the varience seems marginal dont you think for 12500 games, nothing "major" in terms of spikes. Just seems like the graph you posted before over 200 games for that guy.

PS: Think I'd give up after -$3,000,000+
 

Attachments

  • wheresthevarience.jpg
    wheresthevarience.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 53
  • wheresthevarience2.jpg
    wheresthevarience2.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 54
tbdbitl

tbdbitl

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Total posts
1,048
Awards
1
Chips
0
Wow, now I know I'm bad and have stats to prove it, but somehow I'm not feeling that bad anymore!
 
O

only_bridge

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Total posts
1,805
Chips
0
Yes but my point is that just because he is a losing player shouldn't mean he avoids variance. In fact if he has the same ROI as me only -ve then there graph should be similar but a mirror to mine. Over a small sample size these swings should be even more pronounced.

Just because he is a losing player does not mean it will never spike up and down by much. He should still see some variance.

The thing you describe as "variance" is far from a series or ranom events.
There are lots of factors, thats why the "variance" can be so big.
Especially for some players.
 
B

BlueNowhere

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Total posts
4,234
Chips
0
Well, how can variance effect a losing player?

If you get it in bad a vast majority of the time, then there is only one result over time, a consist losing graph no spikes, even for run good because you get it in so bad so often.


Wheres the varience even for this losing player blue? ;)

To me, he never has any sort of spike, in ANY form and even SnG's the varience seems marginal dont you think for 12500 games, nothing "major" in terms of spikes. Just seems like the graph you posted before over 200 games for that guy.

PS: Think I'd give up after -$3,000,000+

Cash game player who obv avoid huge swings. Also larger sample size irons out and minor spikes. Look at nanonoko, his graph is pretty decent for a graph without major swings (bar a minor one if I remember correctly)

In HU hypers you will almost always get these swings over a small sample size. Here's what I expect of a losing HU hyper palyer. Going down overall but still with spikes (He has been on for last 8 hours I think, yet he doesn't appear very good lol).
TotalProfitByGamesPlayed


I'm not disagreeing that getitng it in bad your graph will only go one way, I just didn't get how he seemed to have completely dodged variance. If you merged everyone i've ever played HU their cumulative graph would show a mirror image to mine, they would be losing but still having 15BI swings. I've run at about 10% ROI so someone who runs at -10% RPO should have a simialr graph to me but relfected in x-axis.
 
B

BlueNowhere

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Total posts
4,234
Chips
0
I looked up a few more people today and I found alot of winners that seem to have very little in the way of big swings at hyper-turbos. I haven't found one out of past 40 opponents with a graph that even closely resembles mine. I wish I could make variance go away, would stop me going to cash tables and open shoving 100BB at 5NL because I'm tilted lol (lost 4BI using this strategy).
 
Top