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