How bad is variance?

[DCWGaming]

You cant really look at variance that way.... No way can you compare 5/10 limit to 5/10 NL or anything.

The best you can really do is look at a variancerofitability ratio.

I'm 90% sure NL has a better ratio.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
You cant really look at variance that way.... No way can you compare 5/10 limit to 5/10 NL or anything.

The best you can really do is look at a variancerofitability ratio.

I'm 90% sure NL has a better ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Limit and NL players can easily compute their $won per hour. Good limit players will vary between -5 and +5. NL players can vary between -100 and +100 over thousands of hands. In the end, their $won/hr will be similar. The limit equivalent to NL $1000 is probably 20/40 or 40/80.

Edited BB for $

[DCWGaming]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Limit and NL players can easily compute their BB per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean they compare their $ per hour? Compareing BB per hour would mean they have the same size blinds.

variance:return ratio is the best you can really do. And it sounds sort of like thats what you're talking about... But the size of the blinds really cant be taken into account because of the nature of the games. 5/10 blind NL is a head above 10/20 limit.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Limit and NL players can easily compute their BB per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean they compare their $ per hour? Compareing BB per hour would mean they have the same size blinds.

variance:return ratio is the best you can really do. And it sounds sort of like thats what you're talking about... But the size of the blinds really cant be taken into account because of the nature of the games. 5/10 blind NL is a head above 10/20 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct my post should have been $ per hour. I will edit if I still can.

When i play, i like to have 100BBs at the table to get full value out of my hands, when you by in for $5 you have no room to maneuver and it's either push or fold. I think your varience playing like this at .10/.25 blinds will be much higher because you will get a much higher amount of marginal hands playing against you and possibly multiple oppenents to your pushes which suck with premium hands. If your going to buy in $5 go to the $10NL tables and play there, varience wont be as high and you can actually have some folding equity.

I agree with everyone else that buying in for 1/5 the buy-in seems kind of silly. Even if you are playing some kind of short-stack strategy, buy-in for more.

As far as variance, there's quite a bit, but in NL it should be a lot less. Granted I play a very low variance style, but I haven't had 2 down sessions back to back in over 2 months. That might be variance in itself, but a good NL player should be winning 65-70% of their sessions. And the sessions that you are down should be fairly small. I have a lot of "down" sessions that are down only 5 or 10bb. So if you're having huge swings, I think it's probably more your style of play (maybe a leak) and not just variance.

[The_Bends]

Most of this has been covered but I will say, if you're aware enough to know that 2+2 exists then you're good enough not to want to buy into NL25 games shortstacked.

If you don't want to commit $500 just take $100 and play 0.05/0.10 at one of the prima sites. You can bonus whore around to get that cushion you need.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as variance, there's quite a bit, but in NL it should be a lot less. Granted I play a very low variance style, but I haven't had 2 down sessions back to back in over 2 months. That might be variance in itself, but a good NL player should be winning 65-70% of their sessions. And the sessions that you are down should be fairly small. I have a lot of "down" sessions that are down only 5 or 10bb. So if you're having huge swings, I think it's probably more your style of play (maybe a leak) and not just variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two months is not long enough to draw conclusions about anything. Two years isn't long enough, but a trend should begin appearing by then.

Where do you get the 65-70% of session winning percentage? I think the real number is closer to 53-55%.

My winning percentage by session (per PT) is 49%, however, my PTBB is between 5-6 so my winning sessions more than offset my losing sessions. Having a session where I am down a buy-in or two is not uncommon. Of course, having a session where I up 3 buy-ins is not uncommon either.

I guess my leak is getting my AA cracked 3 or 4 times in a session. Maybe I need to consider folding them to those pre-flop pushes more often [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of this has been covered but I will say, if you're aware enough to know that 2+2 exists then you're good enough not to want to buy into NL25 games shortstacked.

If you don't want to commit $500 just take $100 and play 0.05/0.10 at one of the prima sites. You can bonus whore around to get that cushion you need.

[/ QUOTE ]

UB also has .05/.10 NL. And great bonuses and rakeback.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as variance, there's quite a bit, but in NL it should be a lot less. Granted I play a very low variance style, but I haven't had 2 down sessions back to back in over 2 months. That might be variance in itself, but a good NL player should be winning 65-70% of their sessions. And the sessions that you are down should be fairly small. I have a lot of "down" sessions that are down only 5 or 10bb. So if you're having huge swings, I think it's probably more your style of play (maybe a leak) and not just variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two months is not long enough to draw conclusions about anything. Two years isn't long enough, but a trend should begin appearing by then.

Where do you get the 65-70% of session winning percentage? I think the real number is closer to 53-55%.

My winning percentage by session (per PT) is 49%, however, my PTBB is between 5-6 so my winning sessions more than offset my losing sessions. Having a session where I am down a buy-in or two is not uncommon. Of course, having a session where I up 3 buy-ins is not uncommon either.

I guess my leak is getting my AA cracked 3 or 4 times in a session. Maybe I need to consider folding them to those pre-flop pushes more often [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the 65-70% number from Tillerman's blog. He said that most of the pros he knows win at that rate, and that his rate was 70%. Again, like I said, my style is a low variance style. I don't have big swings. I have a lot of 40-60bb up sessions with the occasional 150-250bb session. And of course, there is also the occasional big down session. And I manage to average 10 big blinds per hour. I've been playing NL for almost a year now. That's just the way my style of play has worked out so far, but I like it.

And of course, two months isn't much, but my point was that variance is something that you can control. And frankly, I think that better players shouldn't have that much variance. If you're having huge swings on a regular basis it's probably because of your style and not simply the dreaded "variance."