10 Table NL 2000 on Party to reduce variance

Currently my game of choice is to 10 table the NL 2000 on Party. I have been doing quite well over the last 2 months but recently have taken a nasty hit over the last 3 days. Not a hit in the sense that I got crushed or anything, but I just dont like losing ever and it is disconcerting.

The main reason I 10 table (sometimes 13 table with FTP included) is because it reduces variance. Obviously playing this many games my style tends to be TAG but sometimes I can see that my opponents might view me Weak Tight because of my low V$PIP %. I think this image might give players a reason to try and raise me off hands more and bluff more often cause they think I will let go of my hand.

Normally I would welcome this action as I am entering the pot with premium hands but recently I have been getting nothing for cards and getting killed by getting pushed off hands cause I am just in there attempting to steal blinds or with AK and not hitting pairs.

Basically the point of this post is to get some feedback from some other high NL players who multitable. Just curious if you are playing as many tables as me if you are also playing a TAG style or is it possible to play LAG while playing this many tables? Do some of you think playing this many tables enacts the law of diminishing returns and therefore I should reduce the number of tables? What do you think is the optimal # of tables to play?

Perhaps I am just questioning myself after the Five 3 outers taht I lost my stack to in the past 3 days.

-Jumpman

[thabadguy]

Play 20 tables.

Thanks for the intelligent response.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the intelligent response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask a stupid question and....

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Play 20 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant!

Looks like I struck a nerve with the usual posters. Not sure why the repsonses. Only guess is that maybe it stems from jealousy, perhaps multitabling up to 13 tables is not a skill you have yet. Maybe one day you too can play at all my tables. I just dont recommend it.

[ghostface]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like I struck a nerve with the usual posters. Not sure why the repsonses. Only guess is that maybe it stems from jealousy, perhaps multitabling up to 13 tables is not a skill you have yet. Maybe one day you too can play at all my tables. I just dont recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL!!!! Watch out KKF, Diablo, Strassa, etc.

Edit: or you could move up and focus on fewer tables, play better and make more.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like I struck a nerve with the usual posters. Not sure why the repsonses. Only guess is that maybe it stems from jealousy, perhaps multitabling up to 13 tables is not a skill you have yet. Maybe one day you too can play at all my tables. I just dont recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really, really love this messageboard.

Good luck BRO!!!!!!

[edge]

I play 4. I tried 8 for a bit, but I wasn't able to get proper reads and make moves; just straightforward boring poker. I play 6-max if it makes a difference (probably does).

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like I struck a nerve with the usual posters. Not sure why the repsonses. Only guess is that maybe it stems from jealousy, perhaps multitabling up to 13 tables is not a skill you have yet. Maybe one day you too can play at all my tables. I just dont recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea ...when i think of all the things i want to be doing in the future .... 13-tabling 10/20 is #1 on the list

[fsuplayer]

is your SN jumpman on party?

The difference between me and you is that while I respect those players I do not revere them. In fact after reading KKF thread on his database my bb/100 hands is significantly higher. While these players are quality there are alot more players who simply choose not to post and create a reputation. This is not a thread about me gaining respect, nor is it a challenge. I dont really mind the responses. The only thing I care about it is money.

No that is not my SN and I would prefer not to say what it is.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am just questioning myself after the Five 3 outers taht I lost my stack to in the past 3 days.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you new to poker or sth ? Five 3outers in 3days ? LOL.
Is it your worst streak ever ? If so you are the on the hottest run in the history of poker...

[fsuplayer]

look, the reason why people are laughing at your post and not giving serious replies is bc its pretty clear that you either dont understand poker and varience, or more likely, that you are lying/exaggerating.

a player good enough to win at a 10-20 level, let alone winning while playing 10 tables should know that 4-5 buyins dropped bc of bad beats is a normal weekly thing.

i asked your SN bc i have never seen anyone play that many tables in the last 3 weeks that party has changed.

maybe we just play at seperate times though.

[Matt Flynn]

To me, optimum strategy for four-tabling is adjusting to opponents and playing a slightly loose style. For 13 tables, it has to be supertight-aggressive. The solution to people taking stabs at you is to occasionally stab back with nothing. It does not have to be often.

I am curious how you can play that many hands. How do you fold that fast? Does your index finger hurt?

Matt

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, optimum strategy for four-tabling is adjusting to opponents and playing a slightly loose style. For 13 tables, it has to be supertight-aggressive. The solution to people taking stabs at you is to occasionally stab back with nothing. It does not have to be often.

I am curious how you can play that many hands. How do you fold that fast? Does your index finger hurt?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

His father was an alien and thus he has the power to stop time by touching his index fingers together.

[AZK]

Do you also buy in for 400 while 10 tabling?

[etizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
i have never seen anyone play that many tables in the last 3 weeks that party has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
a player good enough to win at a 10-20 level, let alone winning while playing 10 tables should know that 4-5 buyins dropped bc of bad beats is a normal daily thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[captZEEbo1]

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS. I'm just like you, the only time I ever really have losing days is when I 1-table high stakes poker (25/50+) and variance (re: bad play) rapes me. I rarely post a losing day, let alone losing week if I'm sticking to 8-9 tabling 5/10 or 10/20 nl. Just remember it doesn't really "reduce varaince" by playing 10 tables, it just reduces the chance you post losing days b/c you play that many more hands than most and play a more TAG style than most. Yeah whenever I post a losing day after I 8-9 tabled 1000 nl or 2000 nl I know I must've been on extreme donk tilt and it wasn't poker gods.

edit: pm me if you wanna chat on aim or something

I appreciate the response Matt. The reason I created this post was to get responses like that. Some prefer to play 4 tables and they believe this is optimal because they are still able to obsereve everything and make moves on certain opponents. I like to play 10 tables because of my style of play. Currently I am most comfortable playing super tight aggressve. I see this as a way to reduce variance as small as possible. Also, the way I view poker on PP is that the majority of times you are going to get paid off is when you are either playing a complete donk, or when you have many premium hands. The way to increase both of these variables to increase the number of tables/hands played. On any given night if I only play 4 tables I might not have many premium hands but if I would have sit at 4 different tables then I would have had a huge rush. Hopefully playing that many tables will even things out.

I just aquired the skill over time. Started with NL 100 and worked my way up. I have been playing for over 3 years now and a mechanical engineer going to law school so I believe I have some apptitude. Also, never lacking confidence or competitiveness.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you also buy in for 400 while 10 tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]
O man... that is funnt, but i also a solid speculation...
AHAAHAAHA.

GL jumpman!

The answer to this question is no. I buy in for $2000. I dont understand why so many of you find this so hard to believe. I truly think it is because many people that do this probably dont post on here often. I see many players/know players who regularly play 10 tables. Not all at NL 2000 though.

This thread has turned to sh*t and hope it gets deleted. Can I request that.

[flawless_victory]

hi jinberg!

[Yeti]

We find it hard to believe, because myself and others probably have 1 million hands combined in that game.

And we can't think of a single person who 10-tables.

[AZK]

I do see a few who say, 7 table. I mean there have been times where I've put up 7, but that is excessive. Caspis,stu,buddy,slothrop,pit,etc, are a few that I've personally seen on 6+....

[flawless_victory]

OMG caspis!
haha.
this is him.
haha.

When I say 10 table it would be more accurate to say 6-7 NL 2000, 1-2 NL 1000, and the rest comprised of NL600 and 400. Sorry if it was misleading. And yes, those are the players I see every night. Just curious if any knows or has any opinions on Robisphere. Seems to play very LAG but does quite well from what i have observed. Much different style than me. Usually see him on 2 tables or so.

[Yeti]

heheheheh

[Yeti]

Robespierre sucks. He is definitely a loser in these games.

Thanks for clearing the table situation up. 6-7 seems a lot more reasonable.

[Matt Flynn]

Both of you guys and VanVeen cough up how you do this, especially the 13-tabler. How do you handle it when you have four simultaneous hands that require playing? How do you handle the repetitive motion trauma? I am really interested.

[r3vbr]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of you guys and VanVeen cough up how you do this, especially the 13-tabler. How do you handle it when you have four simultaneous hands that require playing? How do you handle the repetitive motion trauma? I am really interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you play 20% of hands, you usually only have to pay attention to 1 every 5 tables. Dual monitor is essential if you're gonna play more than 8 tables.

Also, when multitabling massively, go to control panel, acessibility options, mouse, and configure a keyboard button to replace mouse clicking. that way, you can alternate between clicking with right hand index finger and left hand.

I used to multi-table 20+ tables at NL100 btw, nowadays only 6 table at NL1000.

Reason I am able to do this is primarily because of a proper computer/monitor setup. Secondly, I would describe my play as very mechanical and therefore it does not require me to intensely think about the hand. All based on numbers and information readily available to me. Obviously I make different plays when playing different opponents.

[chuddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Robespierre sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

he once said in the chat: "i secretly love men. err little boys. tell no one"

[James282]

You are totally Phallusy.
-James

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you play 20% of hands, you usually only have to pay attention to 1 every 5 tables. Dual monitor is essential if you're gonna play more than 8 tables.

Also, when multitabling massively, go to control panel, acessibility options, mouse, and configure a keyboard button to replace mouse clicking. that way, you can alternate between clicking with right hand index finger and left hand.

I used to multi-table 20+ tables at NL100 btw, nowadays only 6 table at NL1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outstanding. Will do.

Can you post your monitor setup? I have twin Samusung 213T's and lay four tables across the top with PokerOffice boxes underneath each. I take it you instead use a PT heads-up display? Or do you use four monitors? If you use four monitors, what type of rack do you use?



btw anyone who has trouble with PO or PT software being a CPU hog you can go Control-Alt-Delete to get the process manager, click the processes tab, right click on the mysql... and java... processes and set their priority to "below normal". That prevents table freeze during high-load moments.

[Matt Flynn]

Can you outline your monitor setup? Do you use 2 or 4? Box or line? Horizontal or vertical orientations? Thanks.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of you guys and VanVeen cough up how you do this, especially the 13-tabler. How do you handle it when you have four simultaneous hands that require playing? How do you handle the repetitive motion trauma? I am really interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do it by unknownly playing basic and slowly all decisions merge to looking the same, fine details dissappear, constructive complete thoughts get replaced by 'i have trips i have to call'. Eventually your game becomes worse than it was 6 months ago but you also have the fun of looking forward to the time you get to tilt off stacks when you time out of you $1000 pot with top set.

[Matt Flynn]

Can this skill be acquired or is it strictly genetic? Also, was there an anal probe involved? For whatever reason alien visitations in the South tend to include them.

[MaGi]

playing TAG reduces variance a lot. I've made a lot more money playing more LAG (this is 6 max or the 2k tables when they're short-handed) but there is obviously a lot more variance too.

Sure it is an aquired skill. I worked my way up from 4.....Now I sometimes play 13 if I feel like it. Depends on my mood and wether I am having a winning session.

My monitor setup includes 2 Dell 24" widscreens and a laptop monitor. Nothing special, alot of screen real estate though. Minimal overlap but I do not mind.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
You are totally Phallusy.

[/ QUOTE ]

goood call....

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of you guys and VanVeen cough up how you do this, especially the 13-tabler. How do you handle it when you have four simultaneous hands that require playing? How do you handle the repetitive motion trauma? I am really interested.

[/ QUOTE ]4 simultaneous? then I make quicker decisions! Repetitive motion trauma what? I only play for like 2-3 hour MAX sessions usually when I 8-9table.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you post your monitor setup? I have twin Samusung 213T's and lay four tables across the top with PokerOffice boxes underneath each. I take it you instead use a PT heads-up display? Or do you use four monitors? If you use four monitors, what type of rack do you use?


[/ QUOTE ]I have two monitors, but I don't even like putting 4 on each, I prefer just putting them all on one monitor with overlap and I don't user pokertracker really.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
You do it by unknownly playing basic and slowly all decisions merge to looking the same, fine details dissappear, constructive complete thoughts get replaced by 'i have trips i have to call'. Eventually your game becomes worse than it was 6 months ago but you also have the fun of looking forward to the time you get to tilt off stacks when you time out of you $1000 pot with top set.

[/ QUOTE ]


Every starts off well when super multi-tabling because it's fun and rewarding. Then it gets old and hard and then your play and results suffer.

My limit holdem game was traumatized by 10 tabling for a while.

i once caught a fish thiiiiiiiiiis big...

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
You are totally Phallusy.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

I like playing Phallusy.

[Ulysses]

Matt,

4-table bigger games, lose the HUD. It's not worth the aggravation multi-tabling more than that. These kids are young, they are all about text messaging and video games and what not. We old folks should stick to 4.

I've 8-tabled before just to try it out and I didn't have much problem with it, I just found that it was hard to be really creative and the poker was much less fun.

The 10+ table stuff doesn't impress me. What does is Prahlad and GoG playing 3 or 4 50-100 HU tables, sometimes vs. different opponents. I've seen Pra playing even more than that, but 3 or 4 HU 50-100 is very standard for these guys. Sick.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are totally Phallusy.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

I like playing Phallusy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people are so mean.

[Ulysses]

Don't say this:

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one day you too can play at all my tables. I just dont recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then pussy out like this:

[ QUOTE ]
No that is not my SN and I would prefer not to say what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

[IHateCats]

I went through a stretch where I tried this, playing 10 or more tables and it was using 4 21 inch monitors running at 1600x1200 res, all side by side, using Pokerview for HUD the pt stats on the table itself. That took up 3 monitors, the fourth was usually 2+2, email, im, etc. Obviously I've been both multitable and using computers in this configuation for years. I already had this setup for working in my development environment. It's quite profitible but boring as all hell, grinding to the ultimate extreme. If you are playing very tight, you'd be surprised how seldom you wind up with decisions on more than 2 tables at the same time, it really doesn't happen that often and if like me some of your tables were Pokerstars, the extra time on those tables was usually sufficient.

[IHateCats]

I have to second this, I haven't seen evidence anyone playing 10 tables for substantial periods lately. I haven't been playing 10/20 hardly at all the last few weeks but this sort of thing shows up in PT stats very, very quickly so I'm a little dubious of how many hours you are playing. That said, unlike most of the responses, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see you have success with this approach, Kristelita/Alikings dragged out a ton of money in the last 6 months using exactly this approach.

[Matt Flynn]

I can see 8-tables wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable. Pretty much work, although fun work. At some price point it's worth it to me to do that for 5-6 hours/week as a second job. Plus I am getting into country music and have a lot of albums to listen to while playing.

Where are there good 6-max 10-20 games? 10-handed poker is mopeds and Gallo red. Sometimes you can find shorthanded games on longhanded tables, but they fill b/c the pots get big. Too much hassle to keep skipping around tables.

Do you realize that playing more hands at a time increases variance?

[AZK]

prima; though it does seem to be a dying site.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize that playing more hands at a time increases variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

(it doesn't increase variance)

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize that playing more hands at a time increases variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

(it doesn't increase variance)

[/ QUOTE ]
((it depends))
(((on how it affects your play)))
((((if at all))))

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize that playing more hands at a time increases variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

(it doesn't increase variance)

[/ QUOTE ]
((it depends))
(((on how it affects your play)))
((((if at all))))

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I guess if playing more hands makes you play in some style that increases your standard deviation then you could be right. You always hear about these guys who push more small edges and play looser when they multitable /images/graemlins/smile.gif
-James

[TheWorstPlayer]

and some people become more prone to tilt when they play too many tables, etc. But, yes, if you play exactly the same then your StDev/hand stays the same no matter how many tables you play. Although, due to the large number of hands you are playing, the StDev/hr DOES decrease.

I personally have no fun playing poker at all. I do not consider it fun, when I am playing I consider it work and because of this I dont mind it. Playing 10 tables is mentally exhausting. Most of the time I do not enjoy playing poker. I play because I love money.

For those of you with responses that are mocking the people in this thread who say they multitable 10 tables or more, I feel sorry for you. Your envy is transparent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize that playing more hands at a time increases variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

(it doesn't increase variance)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Think about it.

If you play 1 hand in one minute versus 100 hands in one minute, then at the end of one minute, in which case do you expect to experience higher variance?

Of course it's the 100 hands case.

I am not referring to variance per hand.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you outline your monitor setup? Do you use 2 or 4? Box or line? Horizontal or vertical orientations? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt,

I use two computers and three monitors with 1600x1200 resolution. I like the two mouse set up. The most irritating thing for me is when the tables continue to pop up, making it difficult for me to type in a bet (or chat). Moving half the games to another computer helps with this annoyance.

I can put up to 8 full size tables on the dual monitor computer and three full size plus three UB in mini-view on the other. Usually I keep it to 11 games at peak times, and my table hour/hour average is about 8.5.

If you try this out for an extended period of time, I'd be really curious to get your opinion on how much big time multi tabling affects your big blinds/table hour. I am constantly torn between playing fewer games better and more games with a lower winrate. I figure even if my winrate is cut in half (per table hour), if I play twice as many games, I'll make more (based on rakeback and bonus). Overall, I would like to balance my play between making the most money and getting better at poker. I really feel like I've stagnated with regards to getting better over the last six or seven months. Of course the flip side of that is $$$$$.

Thanks

[Big_Jim]

Wrong. Think about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you still have time to edit your post.

[Big_Jim]

I probably do, but I don't think I'm going to check.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Think about it.

If you play 1 hand in one minute versus 100 hands in one minute, then at the end of one minute, in which case do you expect to experience higher variance?

Of course it's the 100 hands case.

I am not referring to variance per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are you talking about?

you can easily make, say, +20 BBs in one hand. that gives you 20 BB/hand. however, if you play 100 hands, i dont think youre going to see 20 BB/hand.

that one hand can also easily be -100 BB, 0 BB, -1 BB, +7BB, etc.

larger sample size = less variance

[vanHelsing]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play 1 hand in one minute versus 100 hands in one minute, then at the end of one minute, in which case do you expect to experience higher variance?


[/ QUOTE ]
What about variance if you play 1 M hands/minute? Think about it.

[Back In Black]

what about if I play 15 tables and look at hot chicks on myspace? How does this affect my variance?

[Neurotoxin]

I did this for the better part of the year, extremely boring and extremely stressful. The biggest problem with this style of play is that it magnifies tilting to the extreme. If your game is off than its off on 10 tables instead of just four. RSI is also a big issue, I can't do it anymore because my wrists can't take it.

[emil3000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you still have time to edit your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heehee, this is excellent. Go Nasty, eff the haters.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not referring to variance per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are you talking about?

you can easily make, say, +20 BBs in one hand. that gives you 20 BB/hand. however, if you play 100 hands, i dont think youre going to see 20 BB/hand.

that one hand can also easily be -100 BB, 0 BB, -1 BB, +7BB, etc.

larger sample size = less variance

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people are confusing the variance of their bankroll, and the variance per hand (i.e. BB/100). Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play. If you've only played 1 hand, you can't be down more than 12BB's, and can't be up more than 108BB's. After a million hands, your bankroll is going to be up (or down) a whole lot more than this range..

In terms of BB/100, it should work the other way. The variance of your BB/100 will go down as you play more hands. After 1 hand, your BB/100 could really be anything (from -12*100 to +108*100), but after 1mm hands, it's going to have a pretty narrow range. I really dont feel like crunching numbers, but I'm guessing it's going to be within a 1BB/100 spread.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

gold.

seriously, how is this still a conversation?

Barron

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

gold.

seriously, how is this still a conversation?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no one mentioned the central limit theorem yet? Haven't taken any stats in a while, but I'm pretty sure that provides the definitive answer.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

gold.

seriously, how is this still a conversation?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

because nasty posted something that didnt make sense, unless he was talking about the variance of his bankroll? and because it seems to be a source of common confusion?

[Yeti]

Somehow the dumbest thread in weeks got even dumber.

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an MITer, right?

[thabadguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an MITer, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
You havent heard the "Variance is directionally proportional to number of hands played" law, derived by Phil Hellmuth.
If you play 1 hand, you can only get 2 outed once..if you play 10, u can get 2 outed 10 times.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an MITer, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because you couldn't hack it, doesn't mean you have to be a hater.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an MITer, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
You havent heard the "Variance is directionally proportional to number of hands played" law, derived by Phil Hellmuth.
If you play 1 hand, you can only get 2 outed once..if you play 10, u can get 2 outed 10 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question for you: if you add two independent normal distributions, what is the variance of the result?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for you: if you add two independent normal distributions, what is the variance of the result?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing normal about these distributions. ;-)


(I threw in the ;-) so the literalists wouldn't have a hissy fit.)

[KaneKungFu123]

how does 10 tabling reduce variance?

[TheWorstPlayer]

V(aX+bY)=a^2*V(X)+b^2*V(Y)=>This thread is retarded.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think definition of variance should be sticked to this forum /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Too often people think variance = swings. But they're not the same thing.

There is an inverse relationship between sample size and variance. For those of you who have never taken a course in statistics this means that as your sample size increases (number of hands played) then your variance will decrease.

This is a fact, stop arguing against it, you sound ingnorant.

Therefore, the more tables you play, the lower the variance. There is only one assumption that needs to be made and that is you play poker the EXACT same way when 10 tabling as you would on only 1 table. This assumption is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned.

Game over.

[TheWorstPlayer]

This post is 100% wrong. I would say "do you see why?" because it sounds like you should if you just thought about it a little bit more (or perhaps if you got an A in stats instead of the B it seems you actually got) but I will just spell it out instead (although this actually should go in the stats forum or something?)

When you play hands, you get AN ESTIMATE of your WIN RATE. THAT ESTIMATE has variance. In addition, your ACTUAL WIN RATE has variance. This is where you are getting confused. The variance in the rate at which you win IS NOT AFFECTED by the number of hands that you play. Your style of play has a certain level of variance and that is that. It is true whether you play one hand or a million and one table or a million.

The variance of the ESTIMATE of the win rate, however, is inversely proportional to sample size (making certain assumptions about the distribution). Therefore, your true results will converge towards your expected results faster if you play more hands per hour. This does NOT MEAN that your variance is lower. It means that the variance of the ESTIMATE is lower.

Good day.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you're talking in terms of bankroll, the variance is going to increase as a function of how many hands you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an MITer, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's play a game. I flip a coin, if it's heads, I give you $1. If it's tails, you give me $1.

(1) We play this game two times and stop, or
(2) We play this game two thousand times and stop.

Then we look at the change in how much money you now have in your wallet, compared to when we started the game.

Under which scenario, 1 or 2, is the variance of the change in dollars from your wallet greater?

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]


Let's play a game. I flip a coin, if it's heads, I give you $1. If it's tails, you give me $1.

(1) We play this game two hundred times and stop, or
(2) We play this game two million times and stop.

Then we look at the change in how much money you now have in your wallet, compared to when we started the game.

Under which scenario, 1 or 2, is the variance of the change in dollars from your wallet greater?

[/ QUOTE ]

the first scenario will have greater fluctuations between different trials of the experiment.

oh, and i fixed your post so you woul dhave an easier time understanding.

[TheWorstPlayer]

OMG this is far astray. In any case, you are very confused about what precisely the word variance is referring to when used in a poker context.

[chuddo]

http://www.danvebber.com/museum/artifacts/raccoon.jpg

do you see why?

answers in white below:
<font color="white">worst thread ever.</font>

This thread is awesome.

It's hilarious that on a forum where people constantly throw statistics around, over half the people here have no idea what variance means.

Variance per hand-- does NOT depend on how many hands you play at once.

Variance per time period(which the OP is referring to)-- DOES depend on how many hands you play at once. In fact, it INCREASES with the amount of hands you play at once. Should be self-evident...

[broken_downstem]

[ QUOTE ]

Variance per time period(which the OP is referring to)-- DOES depend on how many hands you play at once. In fact, it INCREASES with the amount of hands you play at once. Should be self-evident...

[/ QUOTE ]

You were doing well until you said this. Variance per time period DECREASES with more hands played/time period. Imagine if you were able to play 100,000 hands a day--you would have a pretty accurate reflection of your win-rate at the end of every session. However, if you only play 100 hands/day your results are all over the map. This is because every hand is reflection of your ability (i.e. win-rate) so the more samples you have the more accurate the result.

[TheWorstPlayer]

No. The variance of your estimate of your win rate decreases. Your bankroll variance increases. Your win rate variance stays the same.

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
This is because every hand is reflection of your ability (i.e. win-rate)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really? It would be nice to think so but there is no reason to believe it is. Thinking about what just one hand could contain could show why this is wrong. And why thinking of win rates = skill, which is hugely prevalent on 2+2 is also very wrong.

gl

dd

[turnipmonster]

this thread is very depressing, can we let it die please?

[ QUOTE ]
No. The variance of your estimate of your win rate decreases. Your bankroll variance increases. Your win rate variance stays the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you

[AJo Go All In]

am i missing something? i'm pretty sure i know who phallusy is. he is a "big" name on pokerstars.

[Jason Strasser]

Robespierre is an [censored].

-Jason