Party High Stakes Winners and Losers (datamined)

[DeeJ]

I think the thing that brings reality in your face here is to see Kukavica make the top 7 for 50/100 but the bottom 2 for 100/200, played over 20k games in each.

Huh? Huh! you want to make money without variance? don't play limit hold'em [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the thing that brings reality in your face here is to see Kukavica make the top 7 for 50/100 but the bottom 2 for 100/200, played over 20k games in each.

Huh? Huh! you want to make money without variance? don't play limit hold'em [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly agree with you. Limit hold 'em has always had its share of variance but it was nearly as bad pre-boom. Now, there are very few true passive games. There is very little way to beat aggro games without running into substantial variance. I'm also noticing that fold equity is getting lower and lower in a general sense. When I originally started playing low limit poker years ago, I found the no fold 'em hold em games to be that of tremendous (a relative term to the low stakes played) ups and downs. As you moved up, however, you could find a great deal of value from rocks even though the games tightened up. Now, with the aggro games, you must make your money off the rare nuggets (fish) that show up with a major, major flaw. Other than that, you're long-term results are going to be some major swings. I'm winning, but the swings are large and the games are difficult.