Why do SNG's have less variance?

Quoted from the FAQ:
[ QUOTE ]
Why play SNGs?

Different people have different reasons. Some people like the “it’s a science”-ishness of them. Some people like the fact that they take a pretty standard amount of time. Some people like the variety of going from full table all the way to heads up. Some people just got burned out on whatever their last game was and think SNGs are fun. Others like the fact that the variance is lower in SNGs than other forms of poker. It’s all good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it the case that SNG's have less variance than ring games? I find this to be true too, and I'm not sure how to explain the reasoning for this. What are your experiences/explanations as to why this may be true?

[splashpot]

This is why (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=&Number=1479432&page= &view=&sb=5&o=14&fpart=)

[microbet]

I don't see anything in there about the variance in cash games.

That's what I was thinking. The first post was a good read, but it doesn't give a comparative look. Does anyone have any comparative info to help explain why this statement can/should be considered true?

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I was thinking. The first post was a good read, but it doesn't give a comparative look. Does anyone have any comparative info to help explain why this statement can/should be considered true?

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo started a post in High Stakes NL/PL a week or so ago entitled "Variance" that was mostly full of crap, but a few players posted their standard deviations and profits over a few hands. Profit/standard deviation was like 50x higher in NL cash games than in SnGs.

[ QUOTE ]
El Diablo started a post in High Stakes NL/PL a week or so ago entitled "Variance" that was mostly full of crap, but a few players posted their standard deviations and profits over a few hands. Profit/standard deviation was like 50x higher in NL cash games than in SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that. Anyone else interested in the link mentioned can find it here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4131171&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1).

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Profit/standard deviation was like 50x higher in NL cash games than in SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... those were in SD of BB/100, not buyins.

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else interested in the link mentioned can find it here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4131171&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many offtopic trashtalk posts in that thread that it makes even a skipperbob post look on topic! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Is it always like that over there?

[tjh]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything in there about the variance in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I am not a statistician but I can give this a shot.

If I miss the mark on this post then the flames from the experts will clear things up. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

SNG's are sort of like a reasonable option in the stock market. You risk one buyin to win up to 4. Low risk medium return.

A MTT is like a high risk option. You risk one buyin to win up to one hundred buyins. High risk, high return.

A NL cash game your whole stack is at risk. It is possible to triple or quadruple your stack in one hand but not likely. The risk to reward ratio is different. Higher risk, higher reward. A good NL player is one who has in my opinion limited his risk of loss while retaining his chance of gain. I would assume that the average gain is less. I put my whole stack at risk and villain folds I win less than I risked. Hence higher variance.

In Limit games it is similar but you are not gambling with your whole stack. Still your opponents are typically getting correct odds to chase draws and a in my mind you are more or less on one side or the other of a 4 to one or 5 to one bet on the turn and river in Limit. Coming out on the wrong side of that equation can lead to serious swings.

Just a few thoughts...Flame away.

--
tjh

[Daliman]

SNG's have a set amount you can lose and win based on how much you play. Also, SNG's are easier to put a stop time on than cash games. If you play 10 $215's, you can't lose more than 2150, nor win more than 8850,(which is relatively impossible, but still). A reasonable upper end win goal for 10 $215's is 3000 or so. If you were to play a comparative cash game, say maybe 5-10 NL, your win/loss amount is essentially only limited by your bankroll, willingness to gamble, and time played.


SNG's vs MTT's variance is more a function of the fact that only 8-12% get paid in MTT's, and the single event upside can be huge, whereas a vast majority of the time most people would get $0. MTT profitability is MUCH higher for top players per event, however.

Either way, Irie's post is teh pwn.

[GrekeHaus]

If you're looking for a more intuitive reason that SNGs have less variance, you can look at it this way:

Whenever you are playing a SNG, you profit every time one of your opponents makes a mistake. In some sense, you profit from every hand that you're not involved in. Conversely, your opponents all benefit from every mistake you make. So if you're making fewer mistakes than your opponents, you will hence make a profit.

The net result of this is that you get more meaningful hands per hour when playing a SNG. Compare this to ring games, where you're folding the vast majority of your hands and so the ammount you win/lose might only be determined by 2-3 hands per hour. Whereas for SNGs, there will be many more meaningful hands per hour because a lot of the meaningful hands will be ones that you're not even involved in.