Another standard teaching debunked

First, here are two teachings that I agree with and live by: The best approach in a very tight-passive game is to play loser and more aggressively than the field. And, the best approach in a very lose-aggressive game is to play tighter and more passively than the field. And, to varying degrees, the same concept applies to games in between, ever changing as the game changes.


Here's the one I think is wrong: You, the thinking, learning player who plays well enough to win, will encounter bigger swings, bigger variance, bigger fluctuations, whatever you want to call it, in lose games as opposed to tight games.


The third teaching contradicts the first two in theory, and from my experience, in practice as well. The crazier the game, the safer and less risk prone I feel, and if my standard deviation were tracked, I'm sure the lose games would show a lower (or same as) SD as tight games.


Tommy

Maybe you are experiencing that a tight passive game isn't beatable for much and maybe not beatable at all unless you steal a bunch that aren't yours, while in the crazier game there's enough volume and mistakes that the best cards are enough.


The simple adjustment in tight passive is not more hands, then you are just trying to out-flop a better hand. It's more aggression. Make them make decisions and then figure out what decision they're working on. If you can simultaneously see more hands and do this -- that's best.


I'm sure my results betting 73o into a 5 limper flop of A94 show's a healthy profit here. Watching them fold one by one as I wonder which one is laying down pocket jacks puts a smile in my heart.


In any case... When Have You Ever Been in a Tight Passive Game!?!?!

Interesting point but it seems counter-intuitive. Suppose you have pocket kings under-the-gun. You raise. In a tight game you might only get one or two callers and usually no one will 3-bet. Typically, you will lead in the betting and your hand will hold up or your opponents will both fold at some point. But suppose you are playing in a loose game where you get six callers. Now the likelihood of your hand holding up as gone down dramatically. Of course, you will win a bigger pot when your hand does hold up but you don't rate to win as often. Against six opponents, you are quite likely to encounter some raising once the flop comes. You may even get raised on the turn. On the average, it will cost you more money to play your hand and you are less likely to win the pot. I would think your swings will be higher although your earn may be higher as well.

Your edge comes from the mistakes people make.


If 8 people see the flop for 5 bets when you raise with KK, many have made an enormous mistake -- and the pot is so big that paying two bets on the turn is not a mistake at all or a small one. One of the great things about playing KK in a crowd like this is that the pot is so big that your mistakes are rather small -- unless, of course, you fold incorrectly. Compare that to a tight game where someone flops trips on you and you put in two turn bets. Your expectation with KK increases and your mistakes are less severe in the goofy game.


But KK certainly isn't what separates the winners from losers in holdem is it?

Me expeience is that variance is much higher in looser games, consistent with theory. Just think, are you going to have bigger swings in games where your big pocket pair plays headsup or five way?


What I have noticed is that aggressive games have lower variance than passive games. My experience has been that a three-handed 100-200 game has the equivalent session swings as a full 40-80 game. Seems counter-intuitive.

Maybe you're consistently pressing a huge edge in the 3-handed game and a small one in the full game -- and that your edge has the governing effect on your variance and not the randomness of the cards.

"In any case... When Have You Ever Been in a Tight Passive Game!?!?!"


Hmmm. Good question. Well, there's the pot-limit games downstairs at the Horseshoe during the series. And then there's the first eight minutes of the AJ's $15-30 when it starts at noon. That's about it.


Tommy

"The third teaching contradicts the first two in theory" Where is the theoretical contradiction?


In practice it sure seems like the swings are bigger to me. You win some big capped pot with 2 sigma hourly SD in that one pot. Or you miss a bunch of draws in a row and lose almost as much quickly. This type of stuff doesn't happen as much in tight games.


I think the safe feeling comes from the better winning chances that will be reflected in your hourly rate.


D.

It seems clear to me that it is because you believe the first two maxims that the third fails.


You play tight-passive in a loose game. Tight passive play will bring low variance, even conventional wisdom will tell you. On the other hand, in a tight game you play loose-aggro, which "common sense" says will give you more variance. Apparently your style of play dominates you results more than the style of the game. Makes sense to me.

Psychologically, I think that what poker players want is not to minimize variance but to minimize variance/hourly rate. What players care about is how much variance they have to suffer through per dollar they earn.


A player who has a variance of 100 and an hourly rate of 20 will feel "safer" than a player who has a variance of 80 and an hourly rate of 10. Over any period of time, the probability that the 100/20 player will be profitable is higher and once he gets profitable it is less likely that he will lose those profits.


So Tommy's comment rephrased is: In crazy games, the good player feels safer because his variance/hourly rate goes down. That is to say, although he might experience greater volatility, his earnings go up at a faster rate.


Does anyone disagree with this statement?