The Chasers

[beta1607]

I could be wrong, but the way I look at it is like this, in a loose game you may have 30% equity in a $100 pot in a tight game you have 50% equity in a $50 pot. Your EV is higher in the first game but the swings (varience) are going to be more.

If you were not properly bankrolled for a limit which situation would have the greater potential to bust you?

[Jacob_Gilliam]

Unless you have a tiny bankroll, you'll be more likely to bust out at the higher limits. You're more likely to be playing against people who are actually good players, and comparitavely, you'll make more mistakes. I think of it this way: If I gave you 1,000,000 dollars if you could survive 10,000 hands without busting 100 BB, where would you rather play, Pokerstars 20/40 or Pacific .50/1?
(at Pacific you get 100 dollars and at Stars 4000) I'll take my chances in the .50/1 game.

[beta1607]

I am more likely to go bust at the higher limits because I have a negative expecation in those games. That is not varience, that is the difference between being a winning or losing player in a particular game.

The best players on this forum would have a positive expectation if they sit down in a 1/2 game but could lose 100BB and the newest players could sit down in the 20/40 with a negative expecation and win, that is varience, the difference between your expectation and the result.

Having a bunch of loose passive chasers increases your expecation but it increases your varience from that expectation as well.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

I'm sorry, I meant to say that if you were a marginal winner at the higher level and a huge winner at the lower level. Yes, at the lower level your varience is higher, but that's your varience from your average, and your average is much higher at the lower level. So your chance of a prolonged losing streak is lessened.

Oh well... This is just my opinion anyways, guess we'll have to disagree on this.

Still, to the OP: Super loose games = tons o' money for you!

GIlliam, i think i understand what you are trying to say, but i think your understanding of statistics, variance and fluctuation is not correct. But stats are a confusion topic anyway.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

My degree is in mathematics.

Perhaps you were playing too many video games and drinking too much beer instead of attending stat 101.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

I've already stated that I was talking about the chance of running through a significant downswing and not true variance, since variance is calculated from your average, not zero. Run a sim if you want. I stand by what I said earlier and I'm done with this topic, since I've seen your previous posts and you've never contributed one useful bit of information to this forum or site. All that you do is make yourself look like a jerk.