The Downside Of Variance

[crankin 0]

Let me state up front that this is a bit of a vent.Over the past 3000 hands (basically this past weekend and early tonight), I've managed to flop 18 sets (which is about right -- statistical average would be around 21). Of those, 2 top sets ran into flopped straights (J98 and 854 boards) and I didn't catch up. That I can live with. However, I've run into no less than 4 set-over-set situations. And, to put the nail in the coffin, got KK on my first hand tonight, got all the money in, and the other guy turned over AA. It has just been a rough couple of days.So, enough whining. There's an actual question here. Does anybody know what the odds are of running into 4 set-over-set situations given 18 sets? I thought that set-over-set was around 100:1, but I'm not certain how to apply that to 4 in 18 sets.I'm mostly looking to put my mind at ease that I'm on the brutal side of some variance right now.

[Jordan 1]

Let me state up front that this is a bit of a vent.Over the past 3000 hands (basically this past weekend and early tonight), I've managed to flop 18 sets (which is about right -- statistical average would be around 21). Of those, 2 top sets ran into flopped straights (J98 and 854 boards) and I didn't catch up. That I can live with. However, I've run into no less than 4 set-over-set situations. And, to put the nail in the coffin, got KK on my first hand tonight, got all the money in, and the other guy turned over AA. It has just been a rough couple of days.So, enough whining. There's an actual question here. Does anybody know what the odds are of running into 4 set-over-set situations given 18 sets? I thought that set-over-set was around 100:1, but I'm not certain how to apply that to 4 in 18 sets.I'm mostly looking to put my mind at ease that I'm on the brutal side of some variance right now.

sounds like it.set over set happens 1% of the time.- Jordan

[Stylin_Fish 0]

Variance is the only factor in poker that is working looking at.

[nomad_monad 0]

sounds like it.set over set happens 1% of the time.- Jordan

Not to rub it in, but the really sobering thing here is that if set over set happens 1% of the time and he's already seen it at a 22% clip, the odds are really long that he'll see set over set where HE is the overset anytime soon.

[erac22 0]

Not to rub it in, but the really sobering thing here is that if set over set happens 1% of the time and he's already seen it at a 22% clip, the odds are really long that he'll see set over set where HE is the overset anytime soon.

For some reason I don't think it works that way...

[nomad_monad 0]

For some reason I don't think it works that way...

Why not?If he's seen set over set at 22%, the variance is kicking him in the ***. This means that it's not likely (although not impossible) for him to see set vs. set again for a long time. Period. Regardless of whether or not he is the overset or underset. If set vs. set is not likely to happen to him again for a long time, it's going to be at least that long before he can actually be a winner in such a matchup.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Why not?If he's seen set over set at 22%, the variance is kicking him in the ***. This means that it's not likely (although not impossible) for him to see set vs. set again for a long time. Period. Regardless of whether or not he is the overset or underset. If set vs. set is not likely to happen to him again for a long time, it's going to be at least that long before he can actually be a winner in such a matchup.

You're joking, right?Each hand is independent. If he gets set over set 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row, the chances of him getting set over set on the next hand is the same as it always is.

[nomad_monad 0]

You're joking, right?Each hand is independent. If he gets set over set 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row, the chances of him getting set over set on the next hand is the same as it always is.

Wish I was.You're right - same reason why just because someone had AA in one hand it doesn't change the probability he'll have it again the next hand. Brain fart.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wish I was.You're right - same reason why just because someone had AA in one hand it doesn't change the probability he'll have it again the next hand. Brain fart.

No worries, it's a difficult concept to understand. Rather, it's an easy concept to understand, but our brain's own innnate misconceptions and ties to reality often prevent us from understanding things. The brain can often be very baised.

[nomad_monad 0]

No worries, it's a difficult concept to understand. Rather, it's an easy concept to understand, but our brain's own innnate misconceptions and ties to reality often prevent us from understanding things. The brain can often be very baised.

Yeah - but too often I just forget to apply it.What typically trips me out about this concept is how one treats "independence."For example, if you flip a coin, the chances that it comes up heads is the same from one flip to the next.But if you say, "What are the chances I flip a coin and it comes up heads 5 times in a row", it is actually .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = .03. So in situations like these, the natural inclination is to apply our historical knowledge preceding the event and think in the latter framework, which would be correct only after the fact.