Bankroll and playing style

So I'm posting this after reading the BK v. Tommy Angelo thread in Mid/High. In that thread BK puts Tommy as a 11/6/1.5 player (in PT terminology). I think most people on these boards would classify that as 'weak-tight'. But Tommy is apparently doing very well out of it.

It really set me wondering about whether we underestimate the impact of variance on our win rate. I've often read people on these boards state that they aim for every last bit of EV and variance be damned. But perhaps if we didn't do that our bankroll requirements would be less, and consequently we could play comfortably at a higher limit than our more high variance style. This in turn might mean our overall win rate would be higher.

I don't think I've heard this discussed before, so I'm probably overlooking something quite important, but I wondered what you guys thought?

very interesting topic!! i wondered about that too.

and i know big investment trading houses with hundreds of billions in capital (collectively) have profit thresholds for their trading returns (not just anything that makes $$$$$).....

one thing i finally noticed when i used to play on my wilson poker simulator is that the computer player would cap it before flops and later on in the hand alot. and i just don't think most human players are that comfortable with doing that unless you have AA (or maybe KK) pre-flop.

good question though, anything positive EV??? especially when we are dealing with imperfect information... interestingly i wonder if no-limit tournaments are the opposite. these new style aggressive guys (like ivey, negreanu, hansen etc.) take advantage of people's risk aversion, so sort of the opposite of what we're arguing.

[Degen]

[ QUOTE ]
no-limit tournaments are the opposite

[/ QUOTE ]

for one table tournaments this is definately the case

interesting topic

mav, long writeup but pretty good...

i agree with you in that reading players and reading situations (even at 5-10 limit) should increase your EV but as importantly decrease your variance....

wondering about bankroll required at 5-10 limit full-table with some fish and some o.k. players. famous last words, but it seems when you are patient and disciplined the drawdowns aren't that bad at all.... shorthanded, no-limit, bigger $$$$$ limit all can get extraordinarily painful.

[pzhon]

Sacrificing EV to reduce variance has been discussed many times here. There are several problems with this idea.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif People are very bad at determining which situations are really marginal. When people try to reduce their variance, or justify bad plays as attempts to reduce swings, they often give up a huge amount of EV without reducing the variance much.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif According to polls, most 2+2 players are overbankrolled. This can be due to cowardice, but it also makes sense if your win rate will drop when you move up. If you are overbankrolled, reducing your variance has little value.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Online poker games are so profitable that you can move up rapidly without trying to decrease your variance. The constraint may be acquiring the skills to win at higher games rather that getting the bankroll.

While it may be worth understanding which plays mainly contribute variance, most poker players would do better to focus on EV only.

[skiier04]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Guys,

I know i don't post here much. I'm busy playing NL and tweeking my Horse Racing stuff, which is very time consuming. Just in case there are any Horse Racing fans out there my website is www.ultimateprecisiongaming.com (http://www.ultimateprecisiongaming.com)

I could not resist this subject matter, and a very good one indeed. I will caution there will be alot of naysayers to this subject matter if this thread progresses. Its just a question of style and risk tolerance which most certainly affects your bankroll and volalility.

When i played BJ in Vegas during the hayday. The mathematicians(which i am not) would argue... Just sit there and play, you have 2% advantage(depending on your method)and in the long run(without lots of mistakes and being cheated) you will come out ahead in direct proportion to your advantage. Well thats very true, and i dont argue with that. It goes without saying your swings can be horrific at times just like the tough swings in poker,(bare with me a minute). Staying with BJ for a moment, my solution being not properly bankrolled at the time and also not willing to tolerate the violent swings, i needed to smooth things out a bit and keep that bell curve a little closer to center. My soultion was a lot of little tricks which is much to much to discuss here, but i did alot of back counting(watching tables and only sitting down in highly favorable situations). There is one more problem here. In BJ(If your thinking at this point...What the "f" does this have to do with poker, you need to rethink your thought process)even sitting down in highly favorable situation is also where your major bankroll swings arise because the dealer is getting the BJ's and higher expectancy cards. Getting back to the Mathematicians and there response to this. Fire away,(in poker terms go all-in all the time, and in the long run you will be way ahead, cause thats where you make your money)but that is where all is your volatility is lying as well. Its a very fine line between taking the passive route and getting your expected value vs lowered volatility fluctuations.

I'll leave the rest to discussion, but in short with poker as we all know, you need to not only play the player(i'm talking more NL) but we also need to play the table as a whole. Some tables and players you can play this slightly passive style from time to time to take the gamble out and lower your variance, but at other times you have just got to get in there and take that higher variance route otherwise the top players will chew you up and spit you out.

Make sense?

Best to all,

[/ QUOTE ]


What blackjack game are you playing???

pzhon, i liked your response... but what about all this 500 big bet stuff (or is it 500 big blind??), anyhow at 5-10 it's alot of money????

although my experience is similar to what you're saying... haven't had horrible drawdowns playing full-table low limit..... shorthanded, no-limit, higher limits - all of these i've had horrible drawdowns