How Is NL Less Varience Than Limit?

[TomBrooks]

I've read in a couple of places on these forums that No Limit involves less varience than Limit Poker.

How can this be when in No Limit the bet sizes are often huge?

I have about 70k hands of Limit Hold'em and my biggest swing has been -235BB over three days and that was primarily due to playing when I shouldn't have been (very tired).

I tried No Limit the other day and in 2 hours I lost my complete buy in twice and half my buy-in a third time. A swing of -150BB in 2 hours. I realize the utter lack of my knowledge and skill in No Limit was the major factor there, but I still don't see how the huge size of the bets can allow the varience to be lower.

[Matt R.]

In no limit, you are able to adjust the odds that you lay to your opponent by varying your bet sizes -- this makes it very incorrect for them to call with most hands if they are behind. In limit, since you can only bet a small fraction of the pot, your opponents are often correct to call with even very weak draws when the pot is big. It's this effect of "chasing" in limit that makes the variance larger -- even if you are ahead preflop, flop, and the turn, your opponent can easily stay in the pot when they're behind because you can't force them out with a large bet. So, the pots you win or lose tend to be very large (relative to NL) especially if you're a very aggressive preflop player. Also, you can't really equate "big blinds" in NL to "big bets" or the big blind in limit. A much smaller big blind in NL is equivalent to a larger big blind in limit -- I'm not sure if you were playing games with equivalent blinds (I doubt it, but I thought I'd point that out as I couldn't tell from your post).

Over a small number of hands though, the variance in NL is potentially a lot larger (as you mentioned in your example). But, once you reach a large number of hands, the above effect makes limit a higher variance game.

[AaronBrown]

I agree with you. No Limit tends to have a lot of small pots, but when it does go to showdown the pots can be much larger than limit.

I see Matt R.'s point, but I disagree for two reasons. First is that if it's higher variance over a few hands, it's higher variance in the long run as well. It's true you often play an hour or longer in no-limit without winning or losing more than blinds, but one no-limit hand can obviously leave you broke or more the doubling your money. Limit tends to have more ups and downs, but a lot of them offset.

Second, while it's true the greater loss potential in no-limit makes you fold hands you would play in limit, and that reduces variance, it should not result in total variance being lower.

The biggest problem in no-limit money management is you can't readjust your strategy. In limit, if you're losing you can change play to turn it around. In no-limit, a loss can easily mean your entire stack.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read in a couple of places on these forums that No Limit involves less varience than Limit Poker.

How can this be when in No Limit the bet sizes are often huge?

I have about 70k hands of Limit Hold'em and my biggest swing has been -235BB over three days and that was primarily due to playing when I shouldn't have been (very tired).

I tried No Limit the other day and in 2 hours I lost my complete buy in twice and half my buy-in a third time. A swing of -150BB in 2 hours. I realize the utter lack of my knowledge and skill in No Limit was the major factor there, but I still don't see how the huge size of the bets can allow the varience to be lower.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're missing the point. you're comparing equally blinded NL games with limit games. for example, 20/40 is a middle limit game, where that is a huge NL game. you could play 20/40 for a living with 12K. some people buy into that game for that much.

try comparing equallty "big" games. with a 12K bankroll, one could comfortably play 600NL or 20/40. the swings over 100K hands of 600NL will be decidedly lower and the return decidedly larger for the NL player.

fim

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I think it is low variance if a player has a great edge over his opponents and plays well after the flop. It will be higher variance for a merely good player who has a slight but non-negligible edge.

[gomberg]

[ QUOTE ]
try comparing equallty "big" games. with a 12K bankroll, one could comfortably play 600NL or 20/40. the swings over 100K hands of 600NL will be decidedly lower and the return decidedly larger for the NL player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I love NL - higher earn, less variance, less bankroll needed, and on and on. Hopefully the fish don't dry up anytime soon or those assumptions will not hold anymore.

[einbert]

It's pretty simple IMO.

In NL (and the deeper the stacks the truer this is), a great player has a tremendous advantage over a good player. A good player has a tremendous advatage over a bad player.

In LHE, a great player has a tiny advantage over a good player. A good player has a decent advatage over a bad player, but nothing like in NLHE.

Deep stack NLHE allows players to make tremendous mistakes all at one time, sometimes costing tens of BB's in EV in one decision, while LHE only allows players to make mistakes that cost <=1BB at a time.

[Python49]

i just dont see how limit is more variance either. In NL... two big holdings in one hand equates to two people all in and a big swing in money. One bad beat in NL equates to losing your entire stack. The swings are big and sometimes inevitable. On limit a bad beat is just a few more bets.. but on NL its your stack. Id have to think NL is higher variance.

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
i just dont see how limit is more variance either. In NL... two big holdings in one hand equates to two people all in and a big swing in money.

[/ QUOTE ]

In NL, the money favorite almost always has >50% pot equity. In limit, that is rarely true for large pots.

In NL, most big pots are played between two players. The odds of the best hand winning when all the money goes in is therefore going to be over 50%.

In limit, big pots are played with 3-4 players. The player with the most pot equity might still have less than half. If there's two players with top pair, a player with an overpair and another player with a flush draw...variance can get large. If you miss 5 flush draws in a row (not THAT uncommon), you can lose money quickly. On the other hand, if you hit two in a row in this situation, you'll be doing extremely well.

[DougOzzzz]

It's all about the "size" of the game. An excellent limit player might win 3BB/100 hands. An excellent no limit player might win 15BB/100 hands. The no limit player's variance will be larger compared to the BB, but smaller compared to the win rate.