Variance in different forms of poker

[gergery]

It seems like what you really want to measure is the ratio of your winrate to your “swinginess”. Or winrate/100 hands divided by standard deviation (or maybe variance).
And NL is almost certainly less variance for the winrate than limit.

[ohnonotthat]

RESENT - I meant RESENT [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]





[And] NL is almost certainly less variance for the winrate than limit.

[/ QUOTE ]



This is not correct. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

*

N-L almost certainly has a smaller C.V. than limit for games with equal blinds but this is due to the huge win rates a good player is capable of attaining.

The greatest 10-20 limit holdem player of all time will have a WR that will be dwarfed by that of the greatest (or even a good) 5-10 blind N-L player.

The [much] higher WR of the N-L player will serve to [over]compensate for the higher varience this same player faces.

However (nonetheless and notwithstanding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) if two players have equal WRs - one at 10-20 limit, the other at 5-10 blind N-L - the varience of the limit player will be much smaller than that of the N-L player.

- The limit player's varience will be much lower REGARDLESS of their win rates, however the N-L player can lower his varience by a significant amount (while only lowering his WR slightly) by avoiding "coin-flips" (AK vs QQ, etc.); the limit player can also stay out of marginally favorable situations but he pays a higher price for doing so (in terms of lowering his WR) than does the N-L player.

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
N-L almost certainly has a smaller C.V. than limit for games with equal blinds but this is due to the huge win rates a good player is capable of attaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this assumption is the problem. If comparing limit to NL is like comparing apples to oranges, then comparing them at the same blind structure makes it even more ridiculous. The stakes of a 2-5 NL game are huge compared to the stakes of a 3-6 limit game. Blind structure isn't a good way to "match" the two.

[ohnonotthat]

I agree, but how else can we compare limit to NL ?

If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it ?

*

When I play 2-5 N-L in A.C. the average stack size is often bigger than the average number of chips on an entire table of 3-6 limit.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but how else can we compare limit to NL ?

If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it ?

[/ QUOTE ]

By renormalizing results by win rate.

[Quicksilvre]

I'd estimate that a $1-$2 NLHE game is about the same as a $4-$8 or $6-$12 limit game (i.e. one with a $2 or $3 SB). I have no proof other than Eyeballing It, but it seems to be realistic to me.

[ohnonotthat]

Are we talking about the win rate for similarly skilled players (similar as in both excellent for this game/limit, both very good for this G/L) ?

If so, I more or less agree. A VERY good (8 on a scale of 1-10) 5-10 limit player should be able to earn $20+/100 hands; I don't play alot of NL but this sounds about right for an "8" at NL with blinds of 1 and 2.

As for varience . . . hard for me to say but I'm guessing these two hypothetical players should have similar S-Ds.

[gergery]

No, your post is flat out wrong. The blind size has nothing to do with this.

You need to compare the winrates and equivalize them. Then compare the variance you’ll get in achieving that winrate. See pzhon’s post.

-g

[BrettP217]

The four forms of poker widely discused on 2+2 in order from highest varience to least
1.MTT
2.Limit Holdem
3.NL Holdem
4.STT

And nobody in the STT forum will say that STT have the most varience. It has varience just like all forms of poker but by far it has the least.

[ohnonotthat]

Now would someone tell gergery.