[ohnonotthat]

Varience alone is not the best way to choose a game (your ambition should be to balance your win rate with your varience) but since you asked I'll give you the best answer I can.

Assuming you are equally proficient at both limit and NL holdem (proficient in this case refers to an equal win rate in games with equal blinds) limit has a smaller varience.

A 10-20 limit player who wins at a rate of $40 per 100 hands (or an equivelent hourly rate if you prefer to measure in this manner) will see smaller and fewer swings than will someone who wins the same amount at 5-10 blind NL.

I'm not sure what a 10-20 stud player's varience will be (same $40/100hand win rate) but I'm guessing it will definitely be smaller but probably won't be MUCH smaller.

(If the ante were larger 10-20 stud would move closer to 10-20 holdem in terms of varience).

A 10-20 high draw player (lol - good luck finding such a game) with this same win rate will have a very small varience; this may be the least volatile form of poker other than some obscure types found in home games. (It will be smaller still if he plays Jacks-or better with the bug but even "anything opens" draw is a very stabile game).

A 10-20 low draw player with this win rate will have a huge varience; this explains why this game is still played (not alot but you can find a game if you look) while hi draw is virtually extinct. Bad players would go broke here as surely as anywhere else but it often took awhile and they usually enjoyed some nice runs while awaiting the inevitable; hi-draw was both cruel and decisive to weak players - they lost and they lost fast.

As for High-only limit Omaha, you'd have a hard time finding any game and a near impossible time finding a game where you could win at this rate; the game just doesn't much reward good play but it does provide a wild ride. Place this game near the top in terms of volatility.

Omaha 8 - same stakes, same win rate - is far less volatile than the hi-only version; this is among the least volatile games - 2nd only to high-draw.

Razz is virtually never spread anymore; if you do stumble across a game don't expect to win much if the ante is low unless your competition is clueless but while you won't win much you won't see many swings and those you do see will be small.

*

The term you'll want to look up or run a search for is "Coefficient of Variation (or "of Varience). This will show why varience alone does not provide enough data to allow you to make an informed choice of where to sit down.




Look at it this way.

Bonds are typically less volatile than blue-chips and blue-chips less volatile than lesser known holdings yet the typical portfolio contains some of all three.

*

It's worth noting that increasing your win rate will seldom if ever decrease your varience; in fact it usually tends to INCREASE it. The changes in your game that allow you to win more typically include thin value bets and tough folds.

(This is similar to what happens at blackjack when you replace a simple-count with an advanced point-count; the new system finds more advantageous situations but the extra ones it finds are the least advantageous and therefore add pennies to the win rate while adding hugely to the swings).

It's also important to note that in and of themselves varience and win rate are unrelated. (The relationship that does exist is the "coefficient of varience").

Changing the win rate translates into changing the break even point but does not change the size of the swings above and below that break even point. The best way to prove this is to look at the effect of the rake (or time charge).

If you play 10-20, win $40 per hour (pre-rake) and pay $10/hour to play (btw, this is the current fee in A.C.) your actual win rate is $30/hour. If the charge is raised to $20/hour your win rate drops to $20/hour but your varience stays the same. What does change is the break-even point, a/k/a/ your win rate.

- Imagine a society where all adult females are between 5'2" and 5'8" in height. If they all took to wearing 4" heels [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] the average height would rise by 4 inches and but the range and the varience would remain the same. (If this increase in heel height were accompanied by increase in the average breast size, the varience would still remain the same however there would be an increase in the happiness level for this society's male members [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).