Variance in SnGs vs. cash games

[NYCNative]

I'd say the variance varies...

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
its not an intrinsic property of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. Your style of play can change how much variance you experience in each individual type of game you play, but given a style of play your variance will be different depending on the game. Take large multi-table tournaments for instance. You can be a great great player and have a huge positive EV for a tourney, but at the same time you could play in hundreds of these and never win (or even a long stretch without cashing). A player that is equally good at cash games won't go as long without booking a profit, so the variance is smaller by definition. The same is true for single table tourneys and cash games, just to a lesser degree. Just to note, I'm not saying STT's have more variance (I'm not really sure which style of game does), but I think the difference in variance between STT's and cash games is much less than MTT's and cash games.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
A player that is equally good at cash games won't go as long without booking a profit, so the variance is smaller by definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it isn't. the definition of variance is not the probability of "not booking a profit".

and your idea of someone "equally good" at cash games doensn't sit well with me. what do you mean?

and also, i agree that if you play all your hands the same way in a cash game and a SNG then your variance will be different. so will your expected profit. but my point is that you can control both your expected profit and your variance with your style of play, so you can't declare SNGs as "higher variance" or "lower variance" than cash games without a bunch of qualifying statements.

back to your MTT idea, these are also not "higher variance" games. you can go all-in every hand starting with the first hand and your variance would be almost zero because you would lose almost every time. of course it would be stupid to do so, but it's clear that as you become less stupid your variance goes up and you expected return goes up as well. its up to the player to determine what expected return and variance they will have.

[Matt R.]

A player with an expectation of, say, $35,000 in a tournament with a buy-in of $10,000 can easily play for a long, long time without showing a profit. They stand to show a profit that is equal to their expectation over a very long period of time. If they can go a very long period without even cashing, then their variance must be high by definition. Also, a really bad tournament player can get lucky and win, showing a huge profit despite a really negative expecation. This is clearly a high variance way of playing poker.

Similarly, when I say someone who is "equally good" at cash games, I mean someone with an equal positive expectation. It is much less likely that this player will go as long without showing a profit. Therefore, his variance must be smaller. Do you understand my point now?

[mosdef]

i understand your point, but i still disagree.

you seem to be defining variance as Maximum Possible Winnings - Maximum Possible Losses. This is not right. It needs to be weighted with the probabilities of the max winnings, max losses, and everything in between.

and your definition of equally skilled players is still too vague. lets say someone plays a MTT with 10k buyin and expected return of 35K. so expected long term return is 25K. what is an equally skilled cash player? someone who wins 25K in the same average time it takes him to finish one MTT? if so, i am not at all convinced that the variance is smaller. that just isn't necessarily true.

and your example of a "high variance" bad player who once-in-a-while flukes into a tourney win is just wrong. if he finished out of the money 99% of the time and first 1% of the time, that's a LOW variance return distribution because he almost always has the same result.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
you seem to be defining variance as Maximum Possible Winnings - Maximum Possible Losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not. I don't really see how you're getting this.


[ QUOTE ]
someone who wins 25K *on average*, over the long term, in the same average time it takes him to finish one MTT

[/ QUOTE ]

Added a little bit, but basically yes, since the only constraint on a cash game is the length of time in which you play, you have to compare it to an MTT by using the length of time it takes you to play an MTT. As far as not being convinced, I still think my reasoning given based on my example should make it clear.

[ QUOTE ]
and your example of a "high variance" bad player who once-in-a-while flukes into a tourney win is just wrong. if he finished out of the money 99% of the time and first 1% of the time, that's a LOW variance return distribution because he almost always has the same result

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he is playing said tourney more than one time. If he keeps playing in the tournament multiple times, his profits will converge to expected returns. If he only plays in it once, gets lucky, and wins, his results will *VARY* greatly with what is expected. This is why it is high variance.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its not an intrinsic property of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. Your style of play can change how much variance you experience in each individual type of game you play, but given a style of play your variance will be different depending on the game. Take large multi-table tournaments for instance. You can be a great great player and have a huge positive EV for a tourney, but at the same time you could play in hundreds of these and never win (or even a long stretch without cashing). A player that is equally good at cash games won't go as long without booking a profit, so the variance is smaller by definition. The same is true for single table tourneys and cash games, just to a lesser degree. Just to note, I'm not saying STT's have more variance (I'm not really sure which style of game does), but I think the difference in variance between STT's and cash games is much less than MTT's and cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, the higher your roi is the lower "variance" will be.

[mosdef]

[quote If he only plays in it once, gets lucky, and wins, his results will *VARY* greatly with what is expected. This is why it is high variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

you continue to ignore the fact that he almost never actually does win. you say that it's high variance because the difference between his result when he wins and his expected result is high. but he ALMOST ALWAYS comes very close to his expectation.

here are two players: tell me which one has the higher variance in SNG results:

Player A: Finishes 1st 1% of the time, out of the money 99% of the time.

Player B: Average player, finishes 1st 10% of the time, 2nd 10% of the time, 3rd 10% of the time, and out of the money 70% of the time.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, the higher your roi is the lower "variance" will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

this statement is 100% totally and completely wrong.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
i think is a silly question. the degree of variance in your results is totally up to you. you can choose to play SNGs with more or less variance in results than cash games, or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]
OMG!!!plz tell me how do I reduce variance!!!!plz I must know!!