"loose" play and variance

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]
You're hypothesizing from what may happen to a PLHE game to a PLO game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well partly, yes. That's because you brought it up as an example in the first place. I thought it would be helpful to extrapolate a bit from that. Comparing different types of poker can be illuminating sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, the example of lots of players going allin is not useful. It happens very rarely, and almost never in live games. I am assuming of course that these are significant allins and not just tiny stack gambling ones. If the tight player has AA double suited he will not be a favourite to win the pot, but he will be very +EV. Cest la vie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, I think you are taking the example in the wrong vein - it was intended as a hypothetical, to make a point. Are you saying that a tight player's variance in the game proposed would be lower, higher, or no different? As to whether it never happens, well I've seen very loose agg. games plenty, online and in B&M. It may not be that common - but I have seen games play almost like that. Your blog provides a very good example of such a game - when a PLO school first starts off. With the example of Aces double suited, EV may well be higher with say six players contending the pot all in. What will happen to the player's variance here?

[ QUOTE ]
Your example of more realistic play is, not to be rude, a bit silly. If the LAG has 8 outs, why does this shoot up the tight player's variance. If my foe only has 8 pure outs to win I am happy to go allin every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if the example was silly. I just thought it was fairly simple which might have some merits. If you have some that are more appropriate, then let's hear them. The example I had in mind - AAxx pf, raise, one caller, a typical LAG. Flop: T 7 2. He bets, you figure him for a draw, you raise, he goes all-in. You call, and you were right, he was on a draw - he had 9844. This is a 60-40 situation, almost exactly. Doesn't your variance increase if your whole stack has gone in on the flop? Again, I'm not sureif you are confusing EV and variance here. I'd be happy to go all-in anytime my edge was 20 per cent or so. Even so, I'd expect my variance to rise, the more I invested - you are increasing the return and the risk. The hand would play out very differently against a tight passive player and against a loose passive player, wouldn't it?


[ QUOTE ]
Variance in PLO is caused by 50-50 and 60-40 situations which happen all the time. But not as much to tight players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure how tight players magically seem to escape variance more than loose players do, especially if it is an identical scenario we are talking about. Wouldn't the variance be the same for both players? Where it differs is how any one hand is played out. And here I think the tight player will find that LAGs bump up his variance.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember your original post was that a tight player would have a bigger SD than a loose aggressive one in a loose game. I still don't see how you get this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I don't see how I get it either, as it's not what I said. If this is what you think I said, then no wonder you have been pointing out inconsistencies in what you have assumed I said. I simply said that,"there is evidence that a tight player will see their variance go up in a loose aggressive PLO game". I never thought it was that contentious a point and I never made any comparison with loose agg. players and their SD.

[ QUOTE ]
The key point is that it is harder to push tight players around in PLO than in any other game, because 25% of hands, for example, would include a lot of hands like 4 card wraps, which will hit flops that a LAG may be inclined to push at.

[/ QUOTE ] That's an interesting point - I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.

Anyway thanks for your comments. I don't know if it is all that important ultimately but I'd like to hear any more thoughts on the matter as I still don't know whether variance for tight agg. players goes up in a loose agg. PLO game or not.

Cheers.

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
However, there is some evidence to suggest that the tighter you play - especially in loosed wild games, which a lot of the online PLO games are right now, pushes your variance UP, not down

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was you that said that. At least your name was at the head of the post. I think it very clearly states that you are talking about tight play vs loose play.

If you've changed your mind thats fine. I do it everyday. But let's not get into Ministry of Truth stuff here.

gl

dd

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is winrate/SD. Generally, this is the most accurate indicator of overall variance. (For example, this number is the most important when it comes to calculating bankroll requirements.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the number you want is win rate/variance, or equivalently (but more usually!) variance/win rate. Variance is SD^2.

So I guess the question you're asking is does win rate grow faster than the square root of the SD as you play more in your bold, aggressive style. And the answer is a resounding "I don't know".

Guy.