Variance at Micro Limits

[Vex]

Last week I started my first ever attempt at logging 10,000 consecutive hands at the same stakes with the goal of showing a profit over the course of it. I've never gotten past 5,000 hands before, before getting sick of it and changing over to Omaha or playing some tournaments to break up the monotony.

This time I'm doing much better; in five days of $0.50/$1.00 Limit (full ring) I've logged 6740 hands and am tracking at +1.72 bb/100 hands. I am playing 6-8 tables at once -- I'm not going for finesse but rather being quick and consistent and automatic.

I'm doing this on Poker Stars, and I'd describe the games as almost always loose and passive. People are practically giving their money away; I can remember a dozen or more specific instances where people ran me down with draws and then didn't raise the river when they caught. I am playing with a pretty loose preflop selection of hands, and betting aggressively, either for value or to get free cards down the line. There are also a lot of big multiway pots and in those I often switch to passive play when I want to chase. So far I've done a pretty good job of getting the best of both worlds like that.

I started with a roll of $200, figuring that would be more than enough cushion against variance.

I'm posting because I want to compare experiences and ask advice. So far, I've spent 3412 hands, or about half my total play, in a long downswing. In three consecutive sessions of roughly 1100 hands each, I dropped 45 bets, then 20, then 5. Obviously my non-downswing sessions have been more than comparably good. It's also important to note that my bankroll has only dipped down about 30 bets, early on in my first session, and I've been up since then, even at the trough of my downswing (I had an incredibly lucky +78 bet, 598-hand session early, giving me a nice cushion).

So, I ask:

1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience; or am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?

2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?

3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[ QUOTE ]
1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience;

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is a part of the game. I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands, and 50BB are quite common, and I've had at least 5-6 100BB downswings

[ QUOTE ]
am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't played enough hands to really know

[ QUOTE ]
2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand, your variance is generally the same and doesn't change that much with winrate. That being said, if you are not as big of a winner, you will have more losing downswings (If I win at 3BB/100, and you win at 1BB/100, over 5000 hands I make 100 more BB. So assuming our variance is the same, and we get the same cards, a 100BB downswing for me will be a 200BB downswing for you) Just an example, let me know if it doesn't make sense

[ QUOTE ]
3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can probably search for better answers on this, but I think over 20K hands you will have a good idea if you are a winner at a limit or not, but can really only apporximate your winrate.

[deception5]

You should post your stats. I'm guessing based on your description you're playing too loose preflop - are you using a chart? You've read SSH I assume?

I would also say that you are probably a better player than your results are showing but that by playing 6-8 tables at once you are probably reducing your winrate. You might consider tighting up your game, playing fewer tables and focusing more on making correct decisions than on making automatic decisions which may or not be the best choice. This is going to be crucial if you are looking to move up.

[xenthebrain]

[ QUOTE ]
I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands

[/ QUOTE ]
Move up!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands

[/ QUOTE ]
Move up!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been trying and keep getting crushed. Need to learn how to play poker first [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

This time I'm doing much better; in five days of $0.50/$1.00 Limit (full ring) I've logged 6740 hands and am tracking at +1.72 bb/100 hands. I am playing 6-8 tables at once -- I'm not going for finesse but rather being quick and consistent and automatic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your sample size is way too small to tell what your longterm bb/100 is. For example, In the last 4 days of last month I played 6000 hands at 0.14BB/100 but this month I have played 20000 so far at just under 8bb/100.


[ QUOTE ]

So, I ask:

1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience; or am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?


[/ QUOTE ]
It looks fine. If you get to a point where you are over 100bb down I'd recommend stopping and doing some reading, also look over spacific situations that you are unsure about. When I moved from 4 to 8 tables it took me a small time to adjust, also from 8 to 12. Make sure you're not playing too many tables.
[ QUOTE ]

2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?


[/ QUOTE ]

More. I wouldnt recommend moving up if you're only on 1bb/100.

[ QUOTE ]

3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant. Take the time. Play the hands. Then see how good you are. I'd recommend at least 50k.

[WalkAmongUs]

I recently moved up to 2/4 from 1/2 and my first 10k hands have been rather annoying. I'm at 0BB/100 exactly. Every other night I win about 40BB then lose 40 the next night.

I'm positive its just a long break even stretch because I play a pretty controlled game of poker and I've gotten some pretty nasty beats lately.

StatKing says my standard deviation is like $35/hour and that its too high for 2/4. $35/hour doesn't seem too bad. I'm not sure what a good standard deviation is for this level though.

Lookin forward to the upswing!!

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
You've read SSH I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing for three years; I started at $0.10/$0.25 games and paid a "tuition" of about $1000 before I started winning. I've got a few hundred hours of live ring game and tournament play under my belt. Over the past year I've made a few significant (i.e. multiple $1000) wins in multi-table online tournaments, plus a couple nice live wins as well. My ring game play has been off and on and I haven't kept good track of it. I do know that over all I'm about $2,000 in the black. I've read a few books including both the Super/System ones, a couple Sklansky titles, and one that specifically covered online tournaments.

This 10K hand thing is more about forcing myself to track results and proving to myself that I can play ring game poker profitably. It's about developing responsibility. I should know exactly how much I am in the black over all, but I don't. I should know what stakes I can comfortably play live and online, but I don't.

[ QUOTE ]

I would also say that you are probably a better player than your results are showing but that by playing 6-8 tables at once you are probably reducing your winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historically, I've jumped around in stakes in response to bankroll swings, been too quick to get bored and switch games, and not stopped myself when I've gone on tilt and blew through two or three session buyins.

That is why I'm asking about variance today; lately I've become aware of how much of a factor luck actually is, and I want to compare notes. Information is the bane of misguided emotion.

I am playing as many tables as I comfortably can, and I'm playing at stakes I am nearly certain I can beat over a large sampling of hands. If I'm down at two tables, I'm up at three more, so I don't get so upset when the unexpected happens. The law of averages makes swings on individual tables easy to stomach. Since I won't be put out if I lose my entire starting 200 bets, the swings won't bother me as much as they might.

[ QUOTE ]

You might consider tighting up your game, playing fewer tables and focusing more on making correct decisions than on making automatic decisions which may or not be the best choice. This is going to be crucial if you are looking to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do intend to work on that -- I'll probably make it my goal for my second 10K hands at these stakes. But, for me, it can't just be trying to follow a set of rules. Poker Tracker's default rules consistently auto-rate me as a semi-loose aggressive passive, and I'm so comfortable playing that way that trying to change it always fails and causes me to have losing sessions. I can't just tighten up without being aware of the full impact of that change on my whole game.

I have hand data on a dozen other players who've played 500 or more hands against me in the last week; PT's default rules call ALL of them some form of aggressive. Many of them are TAPs, there is one TAA, two other SLAPs, and one maniacal anomaly who apparently just loooooves to gamble.

Is tightening up something I'll just have to bite the bullet and do, taking a hit in my roll until I adjust?

[deception5]

Good post, this clears up a log of questions. You still might consider checking out SSH, it will undoubtedly help you out in these games (4-5BB/100 winrates are not uncommon for that limit).

[ QUOTE ]
Is tightening up something I'll just have to bite the bullet and do, taking a hit in my roll until I adjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make sure you aren't confusing tightening up with playing weaker postflop. Most winning players are tight aggressive - your aggression is a good thing. All that I would recommend is to remove some hands you are playing which are going to be marginally profitable or even slight losers. These will get you into a lot of trouble as you will often be dominated. Usually this is going to be the case with hands like 87o, J7s, Q4s, A6o, etc. Hands that look like they will show a profit but end up losing to better kickers or flop marginal draws too often. Also make sure you are rarely if ever cold calling raises preflop as this will again get you in a lot of trouble.

[Weatherhead03]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand, your variance is generally the same and doesn't change that much with winrate. That being said, if you are not as big of a winner, you will have more losing downswings (If I win at 3BB/100, and you win at 1BB/100, over 5000 hands I make 100 more BB. So assuming our variance is the same, and we get the same cards, a 100BB downswing for me will be a 200BB downswing for you) Just an example, let me know if it doesn't make sense

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are a 1bb/100 player you will have a lot more varience than a 3bb/100 player. I believe that if you are a 1bb/100 player you have somewhere in the ballpark of a 15% chance of having a 75BB downswing at the start of every session.