[ QUOTE ]

Dude, I've run at 8BB/100 over 15k hands at 5/10 only to follow it with -3BB/100 over the next 10k. Should I conclude I'm some kind of 5BB/100 prodigy, or a massive 5/10 loser? You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist

Although your point is taken about 1/2, loose play with big pots generally increases variance, so I think this offsets your point.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that bigger pots and looser games make for large variance in very short samples, but the absurd amount of dead money should quickly get a good player at a positive win rate. My BB/100 fluctuates drastically between 1k, 2k, and 3k samples, but it evens out very quickly too. This dead money concept is why the lowstake games are so profitable, and also why your winrate will converge much sooner then at a stake where the skill is higher.

The run of your cards has less and less of an influence as the amount of dead money increases, and your win rate is much more reliant on the skill of your poker play. This is why i think a smaller hand sample should give a decent picture of your win rate.

As dead money decreases the run of your cards becomes more important and the level of your skill becomes less important. This is why your win rate takes longer to converge(you can't control the run of your cards), and why I would agree a 100k hand sample will give a better picture of your BB/100. Obviously you still need to be a skillfull player to win, but 50k hand break even/losing streaks at these levels don't surprise me. If someone told they broke even or lost over a 50k hand spread at 1/2(on PP at least) I'd tell them they need to study more books.

I don't want to give the wrong impression, I don't think I can jump to 10/20 and beat those games. The skill level of winning players at that level is absurdly higher then winning players at lower stakes. But it's ironic how the roles of skill/card(or luck) change at both ends of the spectrum. I am assuming that most of the players that are toting about 100k and 200k samples are mid stake players or higher.

[ QUOTE ]


You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist



[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing between 30k and 50k hands a month since june. I've experienced variance but variance is much different at the smaller stakes. It varies from hour to hour, as opposed to day to day, or week to week, or month to month like it does for the uber stakes players. again because of dead money and the fact that getting good cards is less of an influence on win rate at these levels. I have losing days once a week or every other week. I rarely have them 2 or 3 days in a row. I have not had a losing day since the 12th of october actually, and only a few break even days since then. I don't think I'm some poker prodigy, but it is alot easier to play perfect lowstakes poker then it is to play good middle or high stakes poker(also i play 2k hands or more a day).