"loose" play and variance

[pete fabrizio]

Just a small topic that I've been thinking about since I saw it referenced in someone's post. I'm sorry, I don't remember the author, but they said they suspect "tight" play may actually correspond to higher variance in PLO.

Now, I'm what most of you would call a "loose" player, although I might describe it differently: I play with a sense of urgency -- if there is value out there, I want to take it, and I don't have time to sit around and wait for the nuts all the time. BigDaveD seems to understand this style fairly well, but suggests that I better be prepared for some massive swings, etc. Is that true?

Of course, for this matter, we have to understand that by "loose," I don't mean "bad" play -- I mean a combination of aggressiveness and willingness to put money in thin - whether by calling in marginally profitable situations, making marginally profitable bluffs, or betting for marginal value.

While the hourly Standard Deviation for such a player is almost certainly greater than a tight bread-and-butter player, I would hypothesize that 1) It is not as much higher as people might think, and 2) The overall variance for that player, measured by ratio of winrate to standard deviation (CV for those of you familiar with ibanking jargon or with Mason's gambling terminology) would be lower.

On 1): While our looser, more aggressive player is putting a lot more money in in high-variance, marginally profitable situations, I think people tend to forget that this is somewhat offset by the fact that he is going to get more money in than your average player in low-variance, highly profitable situations. For example, that loose/aggressive player is often going to get paid off by people with an underset, or by someone calling his river bets (two intrinsically low-variance, high-profit situations).

On 2): Similarly, I think this "loose" player is not only slightly more profitable than his "tight" counterpart, I think he is much more profitable. This is because not only does he get the additional e.v. of all those marginally positive e.v. situations, his pushing those situations also gets him paid off in even better situations, as above.

And I think it is intuitively clear to me that the increase in expectation outpaces the increase in variance. Therefore, the C.V. for the "loose" player is actually lower.

While I have only my own play to back up this claim, my stats have supported it. I generally find my standard deviation is around 100BB/hr no matter how I play, and my CV is around .16 . While I don't really know how that compares to a "tight" player, I know it's much better than I could achieve playing limit hold'em (where I was struggling to maintain .09-.10).

Thoughts?

[Big Dave D]

Pete I want to comment but I don't understand the CV bit...is it just winrate/SD? Does this mean that you are winning 16 big blinds an hour on average in PLO?

cheers

Dave

[pete fabrizio]

Yes, it is winrate/SD. Generally, this is the most accurate indicator of overall variance. (For example, this number is the most important when it comes to calculating bankroll requirements.)

[Big Dave D]

If you are consistently making 16 big blinds an hour over a big sample, why the hell are you here, or asking questions? Who cares what the variance is? This is a huge win rate for plo over the long term. There was a good thread on the hendon mob forum that looked at this:

http://tinyurl.com/533q3

gl

dd

[pete fabrizio]

I don't quite understand your question. Why work on my game if I'm already winning? Ask all the Party 15-30 "pros" who have seen their bankrolls evaporate.

That thread you linked to is unmanageable, are there any highlights?

Generally, I don't think the BR issue is that interesting, since it's pretty much solved. In PLO the variance is about 100BB/hr, so a bankroll of 3000BB is basically sufficient even for a player who wins 10BB/hr. And it's pretty easy to calculate your risk of ruin given winrate, standard deviation, and BR -- in my poker spreadsheet, I just have a risk of ruin calculator.

[Big Dave D]

The highlights were:

SD maybe as high as 200BB/hr
Win rates were 5-10 good, 15-20 unbelievablebly excellent.
Therefore bankroll may need to be as high as 10000 BB, although this was for a very high chipped up B&M game. My gut is for the online games, with the current looseness, maybe 5000BB.

The point is, if 16 BB is your REAL winrate, and by this I mean one that has been sustained for maybe a year or so, ideally a couple of years, then variance is irrelevant. YOu are so far ahead of your opponents that it doesnt matter, as long as you dont spend your bankroll.

dd

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a small topic that I've been thinking about since I saw it referenced in someone's post. I'm sorry, I don't remember the author, but they said they suspect "tight" play may actually correspond to higher variance in PLO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Pete

That was me. I said that there is evidence that a tight player will see their variance go up in a loose aggressive PLO game. I think that is probably true of all games.

Cheers

ps thread works for me...

[pete fabrizio]

That 200BB/hr SD figure is much higher than in online games, and Standard Deviation is a statistic that converges very quickly. They're talking about a game with equal blinds, so that's 33% higher right there. Also, those games often have a minimum bring-in of 2x the BB, and/or straddling (having lots of straddlers itself can practically double the size of a game), plus people are buying in for 500BB instead of the 100 cap online.

As for winrates, it's really up to ones best guess. They don't really last long enough to be measured, since by the time you have the thousands of hours booked that you would need to limit your statistical winrate down to within a BB or two, the game has surely changed and your "real" winrate is probably different.

[sherbert]

Another point I would like to add here Pete - your description of a loose agg. player could be viewed as a tight agg. player in some quarters. What you/we are all trying to avoid is weak tight. I think loose simply means at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious: preflop; taking more hands to the flop than a tight player. I'm probably on the tight side here, perhaps 25% +. You might be taking 35 per cent through to flop, or more.
On the flop, by definition, a loose player will naturally then be taking more hands through to the turn, based on hopes of hitting a backdoor draw/set or 2 pair for instance.
If you are tightening up on the flop, however, this will make a big difference as to whether you actually fall into the loose aggressive camp or not.
Or say on the flop you are raising let's say top two pair more often than other players. Again that is not necessarily a mark of a looser approach than rivals, but of aggressiveness. And it depends on the player you are raising and texture of the flop.

I have no idea what any of these traits will do to variance. A lot of your earn in plo I'm sure is playing the player, a skill that falls outside the spectrum of loose agg/tight agg etc. I'm sure a lot of the plays you mention in your post fall more into that category.

[Big Dave D]

You seem really coy about how long you've been making 16 BB/hr :-)

Measuring a changing figure over a long period of time is quite easy. Its called an average. Sure it may fluctuate a lot, but that is easy to measure too. Its called variance. In B&M games I know my average is 10BB/hr over a period of many many years, so I'm happy that that is probably a fair reflection of my quality of play for that time. If i start making more I know that I am (a) playing better vis a vis the competition or (b) rushing. Its nice to know.

Also I think that the tighter player having higher variance may be true in NLHE, but bollox in PLO, even more so as the game gets looser and looser. But of course his win rate is less.

gl

dd

[sherbert]

Umm, if it is bollocks, could you say why?

Thanks.

[Big Dave D]

god its late /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Briefly, in NLHE a tight player can be ground up by loose good players simply because in that game, you just don't hit enough flops that hard, ergo tight players, especially weak ones, never really know where they are. And even tight aggresive ones may not get paid off enough.

The reason why PLO better suits tight play, especially when the game as a whole is very loose, is that he can play a wider variety of high % hands than in NL, and is more likely to hit flops with them. Note we are not comparing apples to apples here. A tight NL guy is probably well below 20, if not 10% preflop. In PLO he's probably at 25%.

Or another way, a loose good player will often find himself in situations where he is a small favourite, but no more. These add to his winrate, but juice up his SD, as he will miss a lot of them too. A tight player simply will not be in those spots. He gets less variance, but pays for it with a reduced win rate, unless his game is very very loose.

gl

dd

[pete fabrizio]

Um, I agreed that the variance was higher, I just said that the increase in winrate outpaced the increase in variance, so that winrate/standard deviation increased. Do you disagree with that as well?

And as for your annoyingly repetitive prying into my personal business, WDYGFY?

Cheers.

[Big Dave D]

On your first point, I was really addressing Sherbert as to why I thought it was a fallacy. I also feel that the CV as you call it, would be higher for the looser player, but I would guess the difference is not that significant, or at least quite small. However the tight player benefits from a lot of meta game factors, such as being less liely to be tilted, more likely to be able to bluff etc.

Thanks for the acrynonm, I enjoy new ones.

If I offended you, I must apologise, but I do not think the question is unreasonable. You have set a quite high-handed tone for a lot of your posts and have been quite roughly dismissive of others. You then posted a win rate that I felt was fairly exceptional. If you are that much better than the rest of us, why are you asking questions? Its almost a question of credentials. What and how I am doing is public record so I have no shyness there.

I guess that I have always seen these forums as give and take. As far as I can see, you haven't done much giving..in fact I believe you have only ever asked questions and not replied much if at all to others queries.

But I should WDYGFY. I'm outta here.

dd

[pete fabrizio]

Um, I'm not trying to sell books here, so I don't think I need to whip out my credentials any time I want to criticize someone's play -- or their ideas about the game. If you don't like my opinion on a topic, feel free to dismiss it at no charge.

[sam h]

Not really my game, but two thoughts re which style is more profitable.

1) I think the looser style does better shorthanded, since there are more marginal situations. In general, I think the key to the loose style is not just to take advantage of marginal situations but also to create them with the knowledge that you will play them better than your opponents.

2) I have seen some loose players crush PLO games, but always in live games. I used to watch Alex Brenes play at least 50% of his hands and roll over the game (usually shorthanded), because he was a great reader, a coldhearted bluffer, and had a knack for slithering away cheaply when his opponents really did have big hands. But its hard for me to see this working so well online. Maybe your style is somewhere in between this kind of play and standard ultra tight, seeing 20% of flops.

[Graham]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, if it is bollocks, could you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]


cos tighter play means you'll be in a greater proportion of situations where you have bigger hands and hands with redraws, - consequently, you'll hold up or outdraw more often...when you do get heavily involved.

Looser play means you'll be sucked out on more or hit second best more of the time.

[Atropos]

I think you cannot simply say which style is better, loose or tight. If you play really loose, you need to have a very deep understanding of the game + player reads, because you though you have more +ev opportunities, you have more opportunities to make blatant errors too. I personally prefer a more tight style, since with a loose style the variance will be alot higher, and nobody can play his perfect game on a very very big downswing, which takes away some +EV. On the other hand I dont believe that you start playing better when winning very very big, I personally tend to play a bit weaker too. So a constant win seems to be best for me --> Tight

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]

Briefly, in NLHE a tight player can be ground up by loose good players simply because in that game, you just don't hit enough flops that hard, ergo tight players, especially weak ones, never really know where they are. And even tight aggressive ones may not get paid off enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have to be agreed on our terms here. Most of my experience is PL HE, but it's useful to compare one game with another. You are right that a tight player can be forced into a shell in a big bet HE game - although I know one or two very tight players - the less than 10 per cent you mention - who will come out guns blazing when they hit or when they have a big hand. In other words, by definition a good player will not be cowed in a loose agg. game. But it does mean that he will end up playing fewer hands and it is here where his variance, I believe, shoots up. The more loose agg the game, the more selective you need be with the hands you take to the flop (and beyond).

In limit HE Sklansky proposes that if it is six-ways PF and routinely being capped virtually the only hands you can play are AA-QQ and AKs/AQs. You will win but it will be incredibly boring. You will also find your hands being routinely cracked. So your ev may be good - on each hand - but variance will be enormous. The pots, when you win them will always be enormous, but there will be long dry spells when your hands, including sets etc, are busted.

I think, broadly that that model applies in PLO too.

[ QUOTE ]


The reason why PLO better suits tight play, especially when the game as a whole is very loose, is that he can play a wider variety of high % hands than in NL, and is more likely to hit flops with them. Note we are not comparing apples to apples here. A tight NL guy is probably well below 20, if not 10% preflop. In PLO he's probably at 25%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean, although if we are agreed on what makes a good player, then very few can play less than 10 per cent preflop in NL – surely by definition they would start to fall under the banner of bad player in that instance?

Also note I didn't say loose, but loose aggressive - this is a critical distinction. As a reductio ad absurdum analogy: imagine the perfect loose passive game. Here the TAG player is in paradise. On the button he can raise with abandon; everybody will call the raise but none reraises. On the flop it is simply a matter of playing to the nuts as all nine OPs are going to the showdown. When you have a hand, you bet, not to protect it but to get more money into the pot. None of the OPs ever bets, they just call bets.

Your win rate will be enormous and I should imagine your SD as low as it could possibly be.

Contrast that with the worst case scenario. You are a TAG player, who usually sees the flop with 25 per cent of his hands. But in this game, the UTG will always bring it in with a raise. UTG + 1 reraises and then one player will always go all in. You are on the button. What hands can you call with here? I'd say very few as the implied odds on many of your hands are shot to pieces. And when you do call or raise all-in with your aces, you are always a dog as over half the field has called the all-in reraise. So you are no longer playing the PLO tight player’s 25% ratio of hands preflop, but far less. And when you do enter the fray, your hands are far more likely to be cracked than in a loose passive game. The loose agg. players will constantly be putting you to the test on the flop as well. Bear in mind this scenario frequently plays out in the bigger online games. The tight player has raised PF; one caller. The caller leads out on the flop; you figure him for a draw and raise. He reraises all in. If you could see his cards and knew he was only on an eight outer OESD you would be a decent favourite here. But the fact of the matter is that this pushes up your SD as your whole stack is in play. This is a scenario that crops up time and time again online. Players feel compelled to get it all in on the flop. Your variance I would argue, must go up.

A tight agg. game would be the worst scenario possible but fortunately, they don’t occur that often in PLO.

[ QUOTE ]

Or another way, a loose good player will often find himself in situations where he is a small favourite, but no more. These add to his winrate, but juice up his SD, as he will miss a lot of them too. A tight player simply will not be in those spots. He gets less variance, but pays for it with a reduced win rate, unless his game is very very loose.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the tight player in this case is playing a straightforward game to the nuts. Fine, but if he is in the LAG model I have concocted it will be a far bumpier ride.

[Big Dave D]

Sherbert,

You're hypothesizing from what may happen to a PLHE game to a PLO game. Firstly, the example of lots of players going allin is not useful. It happens very rarely, and almost never in live games. I am assuming of course that these are significant allins and not just tiny stack gambling ones. If the tight player has AA double suited he will not be a favourite to win the pot, but he will be very +EV. Cest la vie.

Your example of more realistic play is, not to be rude, a bit silly. If the LAG has 8 outs, why does this shoot up the tight player's variance. If my foe only has 8 pure outs to win I am happy to go allin every time. Variance in PLO is caused by 50-50 and 60-40 situations which happen all the time. But not as much to tight players. Remember your original post was that a tight player would have a bigger SD than a loose aggressive one in a loose game. I still don't see how you get this. The key point is that it is harder to push tight players around in PLO than in any other game, because 25% of hands, for example, would include a lot of hands like 4 card wraps, which will hit flops that a LAG may be inclined to push at.

gl

Dave
-------
http://internetpokerpro.blogspot.com/

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]
You're hypothesizing from what may happen to a PLHE game to a PLO game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well partly, yes. That's because you brought it up as an example in the first place. I thought it would be helpful to extrapolate a bit from that. Comparing different types of poker can be illuminating sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, the example of lots of players going allin is not useful. It happens very rarely, and almost never in live games. I am assuming of course that these are significant allins and not just tiny stack gambling ones. If the tight player has AA double suited he will not be a favourite to win the pot, but he will be very +EV. Cest la vie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, I think you are taking the example in the wrong vein - it was intended as a hypothetical, to make a point. Are you saying that a tight player's variance in the game proposed would be lower, higher, or no different? As to whether it never happens, well I've seen very loose agg. games plenty, online and in B&M. It may not be that common - but I have seen games play almost like that. Your blog provides a very good example of such a game - when a PLO school first starts off. With the example of Aces double suited, EV may well be higher with say six players contending the pot all in. What will happen to the player's variance here?

[ QUOTE ]
Your example of more realistic play is, not to be rude, a bit silly. If the LAG has 8 outs, why does this shoot up the tight player's variance. If my foe only has 8 pure outs to win I am happy to go allin every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if the example was silly. I just thought it was fairly simple which might have some merits. If you have some that are more appropriate, then let's hear them. The example I had in mind - AAxx pf, raise, one caller, a typical LAG. Flop: T 7 2. He bets, you figure him for a draw, you raise, he goes all-in. You call, and you were right, he was on a draw - he had 9844. This is a 60-40 situation, almost exactly. Doesn't your variance increase if your whole stack has gone in on the flop? Again, I'm not sureif you are confusing EV and variance here. I'd be happy to go all-in anytime my edge was 20 per cent or so. Even so, I'd expect my variance to rise, the more I invested - you are increasing the return and the risk. The hand would play out very differently against a tight passive player and against a loose passive player, wouldn't it?


[ QUOTE ]
Variance in PLO is caused by 50-50 and 60-40 situations which happen all the time. But not as much to tight players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure how tight players magically seem to escape variance more than loose players do, especially if it is an identical scenario we are talking about. Wouldn't the variance be the same for both players? Where it differs is how any one hand is played out. And here I think the tight player will find that LAGs bump up his variance.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember your original post was that a tight player would have a bigger SD than a loose aggressive one in a loose game. I still don't see how you get this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't see how I get it either, as it's not what I said. If this is what you think I said, then no wonder you have been pointing out inconsistencies in what you have assumed I said. I simply said that,"there is evidence that a tight player will see their variance go up in a loose aggressive PLO game". I never thought it was that contentious a point and I never made any comparison with loose agg. players and their SD.

[ QUOTE ]
The key point is that it is harder to push tight players around in PLO than in any other game, because 25% of hands, for example, would include a lot of hands like 4 card wraps, which will hit flops that a LAG may be inclined to push at.

[/ QUOTE ] That's an interesting point - I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.

Anyway thanks for your comments. I don't know if it is all that important ultimately but I'd like to hear any more thoughts on the matter as I still don't know whether variance for tight agg. players goes up in a loose agg. PLO game or not.

Cheers.

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
However, there is some evidence to suggest that the tighter you play - especially in loosed wild games, which a lot of the online PLO games are right now, pushes your variance UP, not down

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was you that said that. At least your name was at the head of the post. I think it very clearly states that you are talking about tight play vs loose play.

If you've changed your mind thats fine. I do it everyday. But let's not get into Ministry of Truth stuff here.

gl

dd

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is winrate/SD. Generally, this is the most accurate indicator of overall variance. (For example, this number is the most important when it comes to calculating bankroll requirements.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the number you want is win rate/variance, or equivalently (but more usually!) variance/win rate. Variance is SD^2.

So I guess the question you're asking is does win rate grow faster than the square root of the SD as you play more in your bold, aggressive style. And the answer is a resounding "I don't know".

Guy.