Re-examination of lower variance games

[italianstang]

A few weeks ago there was a post on here discussing which game/games have the lowest variance. I was surprised to see that many people thought no-limit games had a lower variance than limit games. Last week playing in a live no limit game at Morongo I had about $300, most of the table had $200 or so and one guy had a few thousand. In the big blind I checked with J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and there were five-ish callers preflop. The board was 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I checked it down along with everyone else all the way to the river when I made a jack and a full house. On the river the big stack at the table bet $40 and I moved all in, he called immidiately with Ace-Deuce and a flopped full house. I am not writing this to complain about a bad beat, I am simply writing it to say that this seems like a hand that anyone would have lost their stack with, but if it was limit I would not have lost nearly as much. Wouldn't that be an example of why no-limit is a higher variance game?

[unformed]

I'll second that I believe limit has a much, much lower variance than NL. I know at least for me it does. At a bankroll of $150, playing $10 NL tourneys, I'd keep shifting between $50 - $200, playing very tight, very aggressive. I noticed many times really good hands were being beat by bad calls and would either put me out of the game or so low that I was barely hanging on. (I'd generally finish not worse than 5th). Playing limit though, I'm to $700 in four days ... I've had a few bad beats, but overall they don't hurt nearly as much as they do in NL.

I'm sure playing style also affects the variance, since I know sometimes I've bet too aggressively which ends up hurting me in the end.

[Cleveland Guy]

I have to agree with you that NL is higher varience.

Last night I lost I think 9 or so BB on an A high flush that hit river quads. The turn card gave him a set, and me the flush.

I gotta believe I'm losing a lot more than 9 BB if the game was NL

[Tharpab]

You only lost one buyin, thats like losing one or two pots in limit, you must have a bankroll to handle 15 buyins or more

[dogmeat]

I feel for you on that hand, but just because you played the hand poorly, does not mean NL is higher variance than limit.

Some things are true whether you believe them or not.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[pzhon]

NL seems to have a lower variance for the same win rate among winning players. For a fixed blind size, NL has greater variance, but a decent player wins many more BB/hour at NL.

If you need to work your way up from a small bankroll, it is usually faster or safer to do it with NL. You can afford to play in games with higher earn rates, or you can choose to have a much reduced chance of losing. This depends on the individual player. Some players win at one and not the other.

[pzhon]

Guy McSucker posted some statistical analysis here. For the same win rate of $12/100 hands, the variance was smaller in NL with $0.50-$1 blinds than in $3-$6 limit.

[Boopotts]

Reread the original post. The argument has nothing to do with whether or not NL is a higher variance game when hands are played poorly. Instead, he is asking whether a game in which you can lose everything in front of you on one street can possibly be lower variance than a game in which this is not possible (or at least very, very unlikely).

[fimbulwinter]

for me personally, no limit is much, much lower variance.

yes, it is conterintuitive, but here's why:
those insane bad-beat hands will, certainly, without question, cost you your stack. i've lost with quads twice now (never to a S/F however, but i'm working on it) and it hurts. remember these are once in a lifetime beats, i'm SURE you've lost your buyin a time or two playing limit, but it was in a lot of little pots, not one, big, glorious, trainwreck.

*however*

your skill advantage over other players is much, much larger at NL, which means you can play a much, much smaller buyin game and make the same. I would have to play (well) in a 15/30 limit game to take what i take from 50NL. my bankroll is now at about 800 (i cashed out recently to buy a $1400 projector) which is 16 buyins, which i'm comfortable with. no freakin way i'm playing 15/30 with less than 30 big bets in the tiller.

yeah, you might call it apples and oranges. and you can be darn sure that a 10 dollar blind limit game hs much less variance than a 10 dollar blind NL game, but if you're talking equivalent stakes, bankrolls, etc. a NL cash game is lower variance (for the astute player) than a cash limit game.

fim

[italianstang]

Interesting, thanks for the input.