This is a discussion on "in the long run" within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; hey guys, its me again with one of my wierd threads but this time i think this question will make a good conversation topic. when we 


#1




"in the long run"
hey guys, its me again with one of my wierd threads but this time i think this question will make a good conversation topic.
when we say that a play is EV+ and we say that a particular move works in the long run, can some one please explain to me what is the definition of the long run? How long is the run? are we talking about 5 years time? are we talking about at the end of our poker carreer? like for example,lets say someone is a recreational player and wants to play poker for a month and decides to deposit 500 $ and play it. if we take into consideration the fact that some "correct" plays will work most of the time but not all of the time, then this person i just described can make all the right moves with his 500$ and go bust, RIGHT? cause the long run might be more than the month he decided to play.so variance might not be on his side during that month and he might go bust playing like a super pro. i dont know if this even makes any sense but i hope some of you can see where im going with it. any comments? what is the long run as we tend to very often use it in our posts.? AND ALSO: does strict bankroll management in combination with flawless play guarantee winning and not going bust on a theoretical level but also on a practical one too? i wanna hear opinions. 
#2




"In the long run" is a vague way to say "statistically significant". Someone probably has already developed a formula that applies to poker  specifically Hold 'em poker  that will gauge this.
At the risk of being criticized by the math/statistics majors on the board, I will suggest that you'd need to encounter a situation 25 times in order for the results to become statistically significant. 
#3




The long run is not about time but about repetitions of same results that on "long Term" should represent a "real example". If you want some numbers and you talk about cash, then as been said that at least need 100k hands to your wins be any accurate, but better if are on the millions. 50k hands could have any value to tell you if you could be a winning player but still is not accurate. So thatīs is the point, for a recreational player that play only here and there the long run never gona come. A decent player can run really bad and think he suck and drop, a bad player can run like god like 510k hands and believe he is Ivey. then when variance come down they think the site is riged. Players that get things more serious gona try to increase volume and runout variance. So because Long Run could take so much time, we canīt do nothing more than try to play more and play our best, increasing volume make long run be not so long. About BM, it helps to protect us from the downs from variance, but if you are a losing player no BR gona save you go broke. 
#5




re: Poker & "in the long run"
Quote:

#6




Quote:

#7




Quote:

#8




Quote:

#11




The long run is effectively the correct move to gain the most out of a situation, either be it chips or money it's not a set amount of hands/tournaments.
For example; say for arguments sake you're always a 60% favorite and the chips go in and you lose then this is fine, as your move is mathematically profitable and if you always get you chips in as a 60% favorite, then obviously it's impossible to lose. However, periods of time the other 40% loser might be a winner for 100k hands or 1million hands. there is no pre determined amount, it's just basically if something is favorite then it mathematically can't be beaten but through shorter periods; it obviously can. 
#12




Quote:
Also if you donīt have a tracking software how you analize your play and try to improve? 
#13




Quote:
*Though practically speaking if you have a few levels below you it should be nearly impossible. Quote:

#14




Quote:

#15




re: Poker & "in the long run"
If I have understood what you are asking correctly, in that how long (in the long run) does it take for getting it in ahead, to become profitable. Then perhaps this is explained via the old coin flip example.
I have copied this from another site, and will then move on to explaining how it can relate to poker "If a coin is balanced (by shape and weight), we reason that it should have equal chance of falling heads or tails. There is only two possible outcomes and they have equal chance ie 50%  50%. All we can then say with certainty is that if we toss the coin, it will fall either heads or tails for each throw. We cannot be sure whether it will fall heads or whether it will fall tails. All we can say is that there is a 50% chance it will fall heads and a 50% chance it will fall tails. We have assigned a probability of outcome to the toss of the coin. When we toss the coin a second time, the probability is again 50%  50% . It does not matter what happened in the last throw. Each throw is independent. So there is no reason why we can't have heads, heads, heads, tails, heads in consecutive throws because each throw is not effected by the previous outcome. Also, it is quite reasonable to get h,t,t.h,h,t or even h,h,h,h,h,h,h,t. Fortunately before we go mad, what probability theory does tell us is that the more tosses we make the closer the number of heads and tails will tend to 50% each. So for instance if we toss the coin 100 times the count could be 47 heads and 53 tails. If you had tossed the coin only twice you could have land up with 2 heads only. Hence to check if the coin was balanced you might want to toss it 100 times and not two or three times."  Now for example, lets assume we are talking about specifically when we get in KK vs AJoff pre flop. If a coin is balanced (by shape and weight), we reason that it should have equal chance of falling heads or tails. There is only two possible outcomes and they have equal chance ie 50%  50%. Well, we actually have 3 possible outcomes, they are: The odds are KK 71.06% AJ 28.61% tie 0.33% All we can then say with certainty is that if we toss the coin, it will fall either heads or tails for each throw. We cannot be sure whether it will fall heads or whether it will fall tails. All we can say is that there is a 50% chance it will fall heads and a 50% chance it will fall tails. We have assigned a probability of outcome to the toss of the coin. When we toss the coin a second time, the probability is again 50%  50% . It does not matter what happened in the last throw. Each throw is independent. So there is no reason why we can't have heads, heads, heads, tails, heads in consecutive throws because each throw is not effected by the previous outcome. Also, it is quite reasonable to get h,t,t.h,h,t or even h,h,h,h,h,h,h,t. We can relate this to the above odds, and understand that the result of the previous KK vs AJ has no bearing on the current KK vs AJ Although as this is not 50/50, (the odds are in our favour) there is a lower chance of getting x number of losses in a row, and a higher chance of getting x number of wins in a row. Fortunately before we go mad, what probability theory does tell us is that the more tosses we make the closer the number of heads and tails will tend to 50% each. So for instance if we toss the coin 100 times the count could be 47 heads and 53 tails. If you had tossed the coin only twice you could have land up with 2 heads only. Hence to check if the coin was balanced you might want to toss it 100 times and not two or three times. This is the crux of the matter, on the whole, the more times you get into this situation, the closer the % outcome gets to 71.06% wins, 28.61% losses and 0.33% draws. As you play more and more hands the % values will get closer and closer to this. This might not seem aparrant early on, I mean with a microscopical sample size of say 4 hands you might lose 100%. But over 400 hands the percentages will be closer to the above, with 4,000 hands it will be closer still and so forth. If you were talking about specific "plays". Then that is a whole new ball game, as first you would need to quantify the optimum play. And trying to explain that is way way above my understanding. 
#16




Quote:
It's highly unlikely, but it's still possible, both theoretically and practically. Now take into account the fact that it's not possible to play flawlessly without cheating and... yeah, you see what I'm getting at. 
#17




Quote:

#18




I have played over 6 million hands of poker lifetime and have had a couple downswings approaching 100k hands and even one that was over this amount. So I think at least this amount of hands is necessary in order to make any kind of solid conclusions about your abilities. In practice though 100k hands may take many online players weeks, months or even a year to play. And downswings of this length are very rare. So I would say that it is fine to draw some conclusions over smaller amounts such as 50k hands. I would be careful with amounts considerably smaller than this however. Anyone who has ever grinded a lot will know that 10 or 20k hand downswings are quite commonplace.

#19




Quote:
