Variance in different forms of poker

[ohnonotthat]

RESENT - I meant RESENT [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]





[And] NL is almost certainly less variance for the winrate than limit.

[/ QUOTE ]



This is not correct. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

*

N-L almost certainly has a smaller C.V. than limit for games with equal blinds but this is due to the huge win rates a good player is capable of attaining.

The greatest 10-20 limit holdem player of all time will have a WR that will be dwarfed by that of the greatest (or even a good) 5-10 blind N-L player.

The [much] higher WR of the N-L player will serve to [over]compensate for the higher varience this same player faces.

However (nonetheless and notwithstanding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) if two players have equal WRs - one at 10-20 limit, the other at 5-10 blind N-L - the varience of the limit player will be much smaller than that of the N-L player.

- The limit player's varience will be much lower REGARDLESS of their win rates, however the N-L player can lower his varience by a significant amount (while only lowering his WR slightly) by avoiding "coin-flips" (AK vs QQ, etc.); the limit player can also stay out of marginally favorable situations but he pays a higher price for doing so (in terms of lowering his WR) than does the N-L player.

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
N-L almost certainly has a smaller C.V. than limit for games with equal blinds but this is due to the huge win rates a good player is capable of attaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this assumption is the problem. If comparing limit to NL is like comparing apples to oranges, then comparing them at the same blind structure makes it even more ridiculous. The stakes of a 2-5 NL game are huge compared to the stakes of a 3-6 limit game. Blind structure isn't a good way to "match" the two.

[ohnonotthat]

I agree, but how else can we compare limit to NL ?

If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it ?

*

When I play 2-5 N-L in A.C. the average stack size is often bigger than the average number of chips on an entire table of 3-6 limit.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but how else can we compare limit to NL ?

If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it ?

[/ QUOTE ]

By renormalizing results by win rate.

[gergery]

No, your post is flat out wrong. The blind size has nothing to do with this.

You need to compare the winrates and equivalize them. Then compare the variance you’ll get in achieving that winrate. See pzhon’s post.

-g

[BrettP217]

The four forms of poker widely discused on 2+2 in order from highest varience to least
1.MTT
2.Limit Holdem
3.NL Holdem
4.STT

And nobody in the STT forum will say that STT have the most varience. It has varience just like all forms of poker but by far it has the least.

[ohnonotthat]

Now would someone tell gergery.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi [ QUOTE ]
The limit player's varience will be much lower REGARDLESS of their win rates, however the N-L player can lower his varience by a significant amount (while only lowering his WR slightly) by avoiding "coin-flips" (AK vs QQ, etc.);

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really agree with this. I suspect you're confusing no limit tournament play with cash game play.

However, one skill in poker that does have the ability to lower your variance (and increase your win rate) is the ability to read hands well. This skill is much more effective at no limit.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ohnonotthat]

I was operating under the assumption that with so many HUGE edges available in NL you could earn a ton of money without having to subject yourself to the swings associated with AK/QQ-type matchups.

I wrote once that "you can make alot of money taking the best of 6-5ish matchups but you can get obscenely rich by repeatedly taking the best of 4-1 confrontations".

Does the strategy of passing on small edges to both lower varience AND preserve bankroll (aka lower one's risk of ruin) does not apply here ?

It may also be that as someone who generally plays limit I am skeptical of the truly atrocious play found at lower levels of NL (especially .50/1 and 1/2 blinds).

Note: I am becoming less and less willing to toss aside as fiction the reports I have been hearing re. these games. There are just too many such claims being made - too many of which are coming from reputable sources.

- Are 100 and 200 NL games REALLY this soft ?

PZHON quotes a win rate of ~$70/hour from 4-tabling 100-NL; moreover, the tone of his post makes it sound as though he is (in his opinion) good but not yet great.

Good L-rd, if a "good but not great" player is earning $500+ for eight hours of work it's time for me to retire my "extremely good (albeit likely not great)" limit game in hopes of attaining a level of skill that many others seem to posess at NL.

I still have more than a modicum of healthy suspicion as to the long-term prospects for earning these obscene amounts at NL ($20+/100hands with blinds of .50 and $1) but, well - I never got into poker to begin with an eye toward doing this forever. If this NL gig lasts a week, or a month or a year . . . I think I'll be riding this horse until her knees give out.

I must point out that I blame you for some of this, Mason. Your excellent chapters in your Poker Essays trilogy regarding that evil monster known as NL caused me to shy away from the game - as did the fact that prior to 2 yrs ago there was almost no such thing as a regularly spread game in A.C. They would put down the occasional 25-50 or 50-100 when the big boys came to town but this amounted to far less than 50-75 hours per year, not to mention that I didn't have the cash for this game and would have undoubtedly been gutted if I have.

Three tables of 2-5, each full ? That is a very new phenomenon.

I may just hop in the car and see if I can get into one of them.

Saturday night - Christmas Eve no less - in A.C. playing NL ?

How cool am I ? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]



Oh, if the fiance asks - I went out to help a friend with car trouble.

- (Sigh) They don't make a big enough piece of jewelry to get me out of the jam I'll be in if she finds out I left the house to play on Christmas Eve . . .


*

*

*

*

*


and didn't take her with me. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I might be mistaken, but doesn't your win rate have a big influence on your variance? More so that the particular game you play? A big absolute win rate gives less variance if my intuition is correct.