Re: How bad is variance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limit has a much higher variance over the long run, but the short term swings are much greater in NL.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure? I thought the variance was MUCH higher in Limit altogether.. I've played both and I would say Limit has many more swings.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we agree. I beleive that overall variance is higher is limit. However, the short term swings have a greater variance potential with NL (i.e. you can lose[win] a buy-in (100BB) a single hand while it takes longer to lose [win] the same amount in limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to me a variance damper in NL is the ability to protect hands, apply far more pressure to donks than in limit. Avoids those horrible river suckouts (so often).
[/ QUOTE ]
Over the long run absolutely. Compare NL to limit. Say you get AA and a ragged flop 4 times in an hour. You lose each time to sets, flushes, straights and a ragged two-pair. Each time in limit you maxed out every street and in NL you got all-in with the best hand. Over this one hour period, your variance was higher higher playing NL.
Now assume the same thing happens in the next hour, except that this time you win each hand. Theoretically you are back to even (assuming you didn't double up on your double ups in NL), but the amount of the swing was wider in NL. That's all I'm trying to say.
|