NL vs limit variance.

[Peter_rus]

Hi, guys. Im limit player mostly. It's said from time to time that NL have lower variance than limit when playing good. I always thought that it's exactly otherwise.

The main practical meaning of variance is answer to a question - how much hands i need to collect to get my results equal or higher my real EV with high probability. As real ev is usually unknown or have too high mistake in its evaluation and correctness of evaluation depends on variance, i just want your stats not in relation your real ev but in relation to zero results.

So to compare limit vs no limit i want to know what is the largest number of hands you were running below zero rezults during your play. I appreciate all the answers and opinions though i think answers from those who have lesser than 100K hands of NL online are meaningless.

Of course it also depends on limit and number of players on a table, but to get basic generalization i don't need those things to consider.

[greg nice]

ive played near 100k hands on party NL with 50 big blind buy in and have never experienced a downswing more than 10 buy ins (500 big blinds).

i think this question varies greatly on style of play. someone who plays a more loose aggressive style might have larger swings. in limit the correct style is usually tight and aggressive. in NL you can win many different ways.

[Peter_rus]

I asked not about downswings, but about hands played with below zero rezults. So if you played maximum of 20K hands and still loose 50 bucks and you're still positive overall And in 22K hands you start to be positive - than the largest number of hands to get positive results for you is 22K.

Downswings can't be a measure to compare variance in NL and limit cause blinds in NL i guess have way lesser value than in limit. In NL i think if you fold every blind you still can be positive overall if you're good postflop while in limit if you fold every blind - there is no way you ever can be positive player even if you're postflop god.

[creedofhubris]

I've got two hundred thousand hands+ under my belt at this point.

~4000.

[Peter_rus]

Cool! Then im agree NL have lower SD exactly.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool! Then im agree NL have lower SD exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big virtue of NL. You can get consistent weekly wins, which is something that I, at least, was never able to manage at limit.

Also, others may have bigger NL swings. I play very tight, and I'm playing at a lower level of blinds than many of the guys on this forum; as the competition gets tougher, your variance would rise? Perhaps?

[Blackjack]

You can lose more in one session easily in NL due to the virtue of the game but long extended downswings are much less prevalent.

The worse of a player at NL you are, the bigger your downswings will be - mostly because it's incumbent upon your playing ability to decide whether or not to call when it means you could lose your entire stack.

Blackjack

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
I play very tight, and I'm playing at a lower level of blinds than many of the guys on this forum; as the competition gets tougher, your variance would rise? Perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But say they can have 8000-10000 hands of below zero play and this is also pretty good numbers.