[ohnonotthat]

If we define tilt as a deviation from optimal play - that is, we don't specify whether its victim is raising too often (loose agressive) and on whim rather than in selected spots, calling too often (loose passive) or folding too often (tight passive) - there should be no generic correlation between WR and varience.

In theory this describes the situation.

I think there is substantial truth to Aaron's description (tilt being a one-directional and fairly stabile trip) though I'm wondering if the numbers back this up.

- I'm not sure they do but I'm equally unconvinced they do not.

I see alot of bad (as in REALLY bad) players with expectedly high loss rates who, nonetheless have significant and frequent upswings.

All this is merely food for thought - I have neither proof nor even a strong belief that either statement is true; while my gut instinct is that tilt has either no effect or at most a negligible effect on varience, the truth is I'm just not sure.

Question for the masses . . .

If tilt does correlate to a lower varience does it then follow that a sudden burst in performance would raise one's varience - in ways other than the well understood concept of expert play including a huge number of high varience/low profit moves ?