primrose
Visionary
Bronze Level
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
As you say, the red and blue lines are basically a zero sum game in tournaments, since one players loss is another players gain, and there is no rake (but a tournament fee). The reason, why most winning players have a falling red line (non showdown winnings) has to do with the mistakes, that most losing players (fish) make.
Fish typically tend to call to much, which mean, that when a winning player bet for value, and the fish should have folded some bad hand, then instead they call and lose a big pot at showdown instead of losing a small pot without showdown. Of course they will sometimes get there and win, but overall they replace a small non-showdown loss for a larger showdown loss.
This is then further exaggerated, if the winning player adjust by not bluffing a player, that call to much, because then the winning player will not pick up pots, that dont belong to him, which hurt his non-showdown winnings. But he will also not lose big pots at showdown, when his bluff get picked off, which improve his showdown winnings.
As I understand it, "the falling red line" has been a huge topic among especially cash game players, since trackers were invented. But I have never really gotten into this, because I am not attempting to play GTO against world class professional players. At the end of the day, the only line, that really matters, is the bottom line, and if fish continue to call to much, then I am happy to continue taking them to value town and not bluff them.
MTT Database Review
Enthusiast
Bronze Level
If you want to know, whether you are unlucky or bad and specifically how bad - get a database review. And it just so happens I do the best ones on the market. If you are playing low stakes, I can let my apprentice coach do it for around 1/3 the price. I see you have over 100k hands played, so sample size looks great.
primrose
Visionary
Bronze Level
It does make sense, but I'm stunned at the size of the effect. You can barely ever see either graph go into the opposite direction. Would have expected a strategy based effect to look weaker/inconsistent
S
smashthemafia69
Rising Star
Bronze Level
I definitely don’t waste my time trying to prove that it’s possible for my time and money to be stolen. Is it tilt, is there tilt in my graph? More like there’s something else strange—why am I running 5 million chips below EV
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
There is definitely tilt in this thread, and since you have been losing over the last few houndred tournaments, a break might be urgently needed.
Most likely because you lost a few MTT hands, where a lot of chips were at stake, because you were deep in the game, and/or the starting stack was big. As I said already convert the graph to show BB and post it again, so we can compare it to the ones, I shared, and to similar graphs for cash game players. Looking at chips won or lost in MTTs is meaningless, since per definition you either win the tournament and win all the chips, or you eventually lose the chips, you started with. But losing your chips before ITM or losing them to the final winner after first building a massive stack gives hugely different results, and thats why, its more relevant to look at BB won or lost not chips.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
As I said already, you are displaying all the classic signs of tilt, and I advice you to take a break from poker and only come back, when you are able to play with a positive mindset. Nobody can play their A-game, when they are on tilt, so continuing right now will likely only extend the downswing, which began 2 weeks ago and have lasted for around 300 games.
As for your graph 180k hands is not a completely insignificant sample, but I suspect, that you played all these hands, since you came back to pokerstars around 3 month ago. So we are really only taking about a 3 month period, and you have been slightly winning over this period, so what is even the big problem? You just need to get it out of your mind, that you are supposed to have a 50% ROI or some other fantasy number.
And even if your all-in adjusted results for these 3 month are in the bottom 10% or 1% of all players over such a sample, it does not matter. Past results say nothing about future results, and obviously someone have to be in the bottom 10% and even bottom 1%, and this time it was you. As my two graphs show, a deviation, which can look significant over 2.000 tournaments, become completely insignificant, if you zoom out and look at even a somewhat larger sample like 15.000 tournaments. Which is still only the last half of all my games played on PokerStars, since I lost my original database.
Goggelheimer
Legend
Platinum Level
I think this new learning poker thread is especially for this graph review thread.
Poker is a marthon not a sprint.
Poker is a marthon not a sprint.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
If its still not clear to OP and others, why a graph showing chips won or lost in tournaments is difficult to enterpret, then just imagine that a cash game player was playing anything from 2NL to 200NL and chose to display his graph in $. Then obviously hands at 100NL and 200NL would completely dominate the results and it would not even be possible to see, what had happened at 2NL or 5NL.
If for instance his total winnings were $500 but the all-in adjusted result $1.500, this could all be explained by running bad in a few big pots at 200NL and 100NL and might not even be that far out on the bell curve. And this is why, cash game players typically look at their result in BB/100 rather than absolute dollar amounts.
Another example would be, if a Zoo want to measure the weight gain or loss of its animal to see, if they are being suitable fed. Then it would also not want to measure an elefant and 50 mice simultaneously, because the weight gain or loss of the elefant would completely dominate that of the 50 mice. In tournaments we can have anything from a 500 chip starting stack in hyperturbo SnGs to 30.000 starting chips in MTTs, and this in itself mean, that a graph showing chips won or lost is similar to the above examples.
Plus of course the fact, we build a big stack in MTTs, when we run deep, so its entirely possible to be involved in a 2 million chip pot, which could then lead to a deviation of 1,6 million chip for this one hand alone, if we got it in with QQ against JJ and lost. Which by the way is not even running bad, since we were lucky to be on the good side of a cooler, and likely it was just an unavoidable spot for both players.
If for instance his total winnings were $500 but the all-in adjusted result $1.500, this could all be explained by running bad in a few big pots at 200NL and 100NL and might not even be that far out on the bell curve. And this is why, cash game players typically look at their result in BB/100 rather than absolute dollar amounts.
Another example would be, if a Zoo want to measure the weight gain or loss of its animal to see, if they are being suitable fed. Then it would also not want to measure an elefant and 50 mice simultaneously, because the weight gain or loss of the elefant would completely dominate that of the 50 mice. In tournaments we can have anything from a 500 chip starting stack in hyperturbo SnGs to 30.000 starting chips in MTTs, and this in itself mean, that a graph showing chips won or lost is similar to the above examples.
Plus of course the fact, we build a big stack in MTTs, when we run deep, so its entirely possible to be involved in a 2 million chip pot, which could then lead to a deviation of 1,6 million chip for this one hand alone, if we got it in with QQ against JJ and lost. Which by the way is not even running bad, since we were lucky to be on the good side of a cooler, and likely it was just an unavoidable spot for both players.
S
smashthemafia69
Rising Star
Bronze Level
You sound like a lawyer for the poker sites. Haha. What you’re saying makes sense, but it only applies when you go really deep in a big tournament. Not when you always get busted right before the money with a weaker hand. Or when you run into a cooler. So your theory is very well written in a legalistic way, but it’s not true. All-in adjusted chips versus net won, with such a huge gap that’s definitely not just because of one hand in a deep run of some big tournament with a high prize pool
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
Why have you still not posted the graph showing BB won or lost? It literally takes one minute, and then we can see, how bad you have actually been running.
Fallenglory
Rock Star
Platinum Level
I'm not sure what we can make of this graph you posted. You need to show tournaments played with their respected results. Not total chips won. On GG you have Pokercraft, for Pokerstars you probably need an analysing tool.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
Also "layer for the poker sites". Seriously? Do you think, you are the first player to the this idea, that PokerStars is rigged, and now you are going to prove it to the whole world and bring those bastards down? Have you seen the Rigged Megathread? The harsh truth is, that if we are not getting the results in online poker, we were hoping for, then its not the fault of the sites. Except of course for the fact, they charge us a lot of rake. According to sharkscope your total rake paid is $2.123, so this is the main reason, you are only up $761.
Of course rake can not be avoided, unless we arrange a private home game with our friends. But we can shop around for the best deals and play games, where the rake is not to unreasonable and/or play on sites, that give us a good rakeback. And here PokerStars mostly stand out in a negative way at least for micro and low stakes players. So maybe you should try another site or at least avoid the most heavily raked games. You are playing $2 9-man SnGs with a rake of 15-16%, and even if these games are probably very soft, thats a tough headwind to overcome.
And honestly move up. You already have a track record as a winning player, so why are you still grinding $1-2 games? Give yourself a bankroll of at least $500 to work with and then play $5-10 SnGs and $2.2-5.5 MTTs, if you want to continue playing on PokerStars. For SnGs the rake drop, when you move up, and this fully compensate for slightly tougher fields. Maybe you need to game select and limit multi tabling a bit, but if you can beat $2 SnGs on Stars, then you can also beat similar $10 SnGs with a lower rake.
Of course rake can not be avoided, unless we arrange a private home game with our friends. But we can shop around for the best deals and play games, where the rake is not to unreasonable and/or play on sites, that give us a good rakeback. And here PokerStars mostly stand out in a negative way at least for micro and low stakes players. So maybe you should try another site or at least avoid the most heavily raked games. You are playing $2 9-man SnGs with a rake of 15-16%, and even if these games are probably very soft, thats a tough headwind to overcome.
And honestly move up. You already have a track record as a winning player, so why are you still grinding $1-2 games? Give yourself a bankroll of at least $500 to work with and then play $5-10 SnGs and $2.2-5.5 MTTs, if you want to continue playing on PokerStars. For SnGs the rake drop, when you move up, and this fully compensate for slightly tougher fields. Maybe you need to game select and limit multi tabling a bit, but if you can beat $2 SnGs on Stars, then you can also beat similar $10 SnGs with a lower rake.