Interesting Find in HEM Reports....Proof of "foul play"???

[ktx49]

Hey guys, I am a microstakes noob who has recently begun to take the game more seriously....ive started to put in alot more time learning as well as grinding yet I just have not seen any results. I know I know, if i'm getting it in good and i made the rightplay thats all that should matter, but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand.

day after day, hand after hand i get it in good only to see the board run out as if someone were hand selecting the cards; ive lost quads over quads, str8 flush over str8 flush, EVERYTHING....i dont even call them races any more, i call them quarters since i only win 1/4th of the time i get it in as a coin flip.

so basically at this point i'm sure most of you are rolling your eyes....you see "microstakes" "noob" "results" and assume that I'm just experiencing some bad variance and suck....i may not be the best player, but I doubt even the best players could overcome something like this:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Using the simulator recommended to me by fellow poker players:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

as you can see, even running 1,000 trials, my actual results do not fall within the acceptable distributions....and everyone knows that this simulator is really to show the absolute worst case scenarios that are mathematically possible. (and please, correct me if i am wrong on anything here....that is partially why i posted it on here where maybe some of the HEM stat guys can take a look).

I'm hoping that these forums will be able to look at this data and findings without bias and help provide me with some further analysis and maybe help me figure this out.

I play almost exclusively turbo tournaments/SNGs, mostly 45man turbos so lets also remember that all in shoves will mostly be with stacks less than 10bb and usually around 4 or 5.....so this is absolutely horrible and means im "running" even worse than it appears.

wtf is going on here, am i being cheated out of equity in some manner?

thanks guys!

[RDB]

I believe that the variance simulator is primarily designed to simulate variance for cash games and not tournaments. I would check with them to see if that is the case.

and everyone knows that this simulator is really to show the absolute worst case scenarios that are mathematically possible.

It is "mathematically possible" for you to lose all your All ins but it is unlikely to be simulated in only 1000 runs so the simulator is not showing the absolute worst case scenario. Also there are plenty of forums with conspiracy theories but this is not the place for them.

[Patvs]

The Chip EV BB/100, Standard Deviation, the simulator you used... even BB/100 have no real meaning in 45 man SNGs.

Since unlike in cashgames, it makes a huge difference when you win/loose with for example AA: early phase vs bubble vs in the money vs headsup.
In addition you even rely on situations where you FOLD and two opponents go allin. If the bigger stack has the best hand and wins (and eliminates a player) your equity grows. If the bigger stack has the best hand and loses the hand (and doubles up the shorter stack player) is has a negative effect on your equity.

Since these are turbo SNGs this also has a bigger impact.

---

So to summarize:
-The simulation you used is designed for cashgames only
-Variance will be much greater since you don't play cashgames
-Variance will be much greater since you play a turbo SNG structure
-Therefore EV BB/100 / Std dev BB/100 don't apply.
-And the "acceptable distributions" from the simulation don't apply for you.


Are you still playing these games profitable? With a positive ROI?