Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

I'm constantly reading posts bemoaning how volatile 6-max is compared to full games. Often it seems to be attributed to the "wilder" nature of 6-max, that is, more deceptive and tricky play.

Since making the switch from full to 6-max, my standard deviation has dropped from 16.0BB/100 to 14.7BB/100. Some others had wondered aloud why thier SD dropped when they move to 6-max. I suspect it is simply a natural consequence of short handed pots; the best hand going in tends to hold-up more frequently.

So it would appear that 6-max is actually less "swingy" (lower variance). Why then is there a common perception that 6-max is more volatile? I propose three possible reasons:

1) Players win rates (BB/100) tend to drop when they make the move from full to 6-max until they make the needed adjustments. They attribute thier lower performance to extended periods of "running bad"

2) Players moving to 5/10 6-max are often moving up in limits at the same time (typically from 3/6). This leads greater swings in terms of absolute dollars which, psychologically at least, feels more volatile.

3) Time compression. More hands played per hour means more hands played for the same session length and consequently, greater wins and losses per session will be observed.

Thoughts?
Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

I had collossal swings when I first started playing 6-max, but I wasn't playing very well. Eventually, after playing and reading the forums alot, things sort of clicked for me. In 75k hands of 5/10 and 10/20 since then, I think my biggest downswing has been ~125 bb's. I'm sure I will have bigger and I have 100 bb slides all the time, but I still consider that impressively low variance. And this is with a SD of 16.9.

In the 10k hands or so I have played at 15/30 full, I have already had one 130 bb downswing. Now this certainly isn't conclusive, but in my experience anyway the 6-max games actually have less variance than the full (at least the 15/30 full).

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

I agree with your reasoning.

I think that #1 is a long term effect. The players at 5/10 6-max are tougher than the players at 3/6 and below,. Winrate drops permanently.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

These types of comparisons are tricky because of the different blind structures of 2/4 (and 10/20), 3/6, 5/10 and 15/30.

A larger SB dictates looser play. I am not sure what effect this has on SD, but I think it has some.

Paul

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

Excellent points, specifically #1. The adjustment is far greater than most make it out to be.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

Also a side-effect of #1: a lower winrate increases likelihood of bigger downswings.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

does this mean you actually have less varience? is that what std dev relates to?

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

Variance = SD^2. So, yes, they are both a mathematical measure of "swingyness".

Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) Time compression. More hands played per hour means more hands played for the same session length and consequently, greater wins and losses per session will be observed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly true.

Over what number of hands has your std dev dropped? (how many six max hands have contributed to std dev)

-Brad

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

how many six max hands have contributed to std dev

20,000.

Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

the party 5-10 6max game is not very aggressive so swings are not that great.

the 10-20 6max is more aggressive so swings are worse.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

Your 3rd assumtion is wrong.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

the 10-20 6max is more aggressive so swings are worse

OK, so what is your standard deviation at 5/10 & 10/20 6-max? Do you have some evidence that variance and aggression are related?

Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your 3rd assumtion is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

No, #3 is correct. If you have a true win rate of 2BB/100, a SD of 15BB/100 and play 100 hand sessions, then 95% of your sessions will fall between +31.4BB and -27.4BB. If you play 200 hand sessions then 95% of your sessions will fall between +45.6BB and -37.6BB.

Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) Time compression. More hands played per hour means more hands played for the same session length and consequently, greater wins and losses per session will be observed.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, #3 is correct. If you have a true win rate of 2BB/100, a SD of 15BB/100 and play 100 hand sessions, then 95% of your sessions will fall between +31.4BB and -27.4BB. If you play 200 hand sessions then 95% of your sessions will fall between +45.6BB and -37.6BB.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if you played 10,000 hand sessions? What if you played 100,000 hand sessions? It is intuitive to me that as your amount of hands per sessions increases then your winrate/session approaches your true winrate.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
the 10-20 6max is more aggressive so swings are worse

OK, so what is your standard deviation at 5/10 & 10/20 6-max? Do you have some evidence that variance and aggression are related?


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont have pokertracker in front of me but I have about 10,000 10/20 hands. I remember 2 +100 BB days and 1 -250BB downswing.

In 40,000 5/10 hands I never had a downswing that bad and I can only remember 3 +100BB swings.

However, I am not convinced I am a winning 10/20 player.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

It is intuitive to me that as your amount of hands per sessions increases then your winrate/session approaches your true winrate.

Yes, this of course is true. Your observed win rate (BB/100) approaches your true win rate. I think we are on the same page here.

What I am talking about is a psychological effect. When you increase the number of hands that you play per session, the extremes that you can win or lose in terms of absolute dollars increases. This leads some people to (wrongly) conclude that 6-max is more volatile. What is really happening is that they are simply playing more hands per session.

No sessions are long enough to get to the "long run". If a 2BB/100 winning player could play 100,000 hand sessions then there would be almost no chance of him ever having a losing session. Real sessions are measured in hundreds of hands.

Lost Wages

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

this is because your SD/1,000,000 hands will be much smaller than your SD/100 hands. in Lost's original post he was stipulating 100 hand sessions, merely because SD/100 is the commonly collected stat.

u are 100% right
 

I know for a fact that its a myth that SD is bigger at 10/20 6max then at 5/106max at Party Poker.

I have nearly excatly the same (0.2/100 lower at 10/20)

10/20 is more lagish so it feels swingier and its more $. Thats all there is to it.

Well, okay, 10/20 is 100h/hour and 5/10 is 90h/hour, but that is not a lot. I play 400 hands/hour when I 4table, not many playing so many hands at full table? Or are u guys 6- 0r 8-tabling?

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
the party 5-10 6max game is not very aggressive so swings are not that great.

the 10-20 6max is more aggressive so swings are worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the 5-10 6max games totally unbearable lately, I've had about 10 losing sessions in a row. I've played roughly 20,000 hands or so without making any money.

Re: Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More \"Swingy\" than Full
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is because your SD/1,000,000 hands will be much smaller than your SD/100 hands. in Lost's original post he was stipulating 100 hand sessions, merely because SD/100 is the commonly collected stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP said that variance is greater because you see more hands implying that your SD increases with your amount of hands. He went on to say that your SD/100 is less than your SD/200.