Help me explain this to a non-believer

[JihadOnTheRiver]

I have a friend who claims to be "open-minded", but for the life of him will not give in to the fact that a NL player experiences less variance than a limit player. When pressed for a logical explanation, I blanked. I just always took it as gospel. What's my argument?

JOTR

[Lmn55d]

In holdem you can be both a small favorite, and a fairly large favorite in a hand. Let's assume that a decent player will be able to identify when he is likely a big favorite and when he is a small favorite. In limit holdem you can only get so much money in the pot at a particular time (usually there's a 4 bet cap on each street). In no limit you can get a lot of money in when you're a large favorite. Thus you can have a bigger edge and thus lower variance, as variance is a function of winrate and standard deviation.

Because of this capped betting, you cannot protect your hand as well as you can in no limit. So even if you are a bigger favorite you will be drawn out on more frequently than in no limit. In no limit you will be drawn out on less frequently, and your opponents will often be less correct when they do draw out on you.

This is my understanding of it at least. Maybe someone can give a better explanation.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

A no limiy player has far more of an edge due to his ability to bet any amount, making it much easier to force opponents into making mistakes.

[MicroBob]

I think Mason covers this issue in one of his essays regarding why he didn't think NL cash-games could survive in B&M (this was before the HUGE popularity-boom of the games due to TV).

It's either in GTAOT or Poker Essays II or III.

Pretty much explains that better players have a more significant edge at NL cash-games and that fishy players are just going to lose their money faster.
I believe that this directly relates to the issue of there being less variance in the NL game as well.



Although...if we're just looking at the blind structure then you friend is correct.

5/10 limit doesn't even compare with 5/10 NL for example.

But if you're looking in terms of levels with equal profitability then we're looking at less variance for NL obviously.

[UATrewqaz]

The NL player has the advantage of being able to CONTROL THE POT ODDS.

Simple example.

10/20 limit hold em

In limit you hold top 2 pair with 1 card to come. You put your single opponent on a flush draw. The pot contains $260. You correctly bet $20, the pot now has $280 giving your opponent 14-1 on his call. He has the pot odds to call, so he does.

Your bet was 100% correct (don't want to let him draw for free) and his call was 100% correct.

Ok the game is now say 5/10 NL.

Same setup as before, pot has $260 on the turn and you put your opponent on a flush draw... so you bet the pot.

The pot now contains $520 and your opponent must call $260, this is 2-1. Thus he is NOT getting correct odds to call. His proper play is to fold. Thus you win the pot 100% of the time when your opponent plays this correctly.

However you win even MORE when your oppoent makes a bad call.

That's the key difference

Limit = very difficult, sometimes impossible to control the pot odds
NL = the ability to offer your opponents whatever odds you see fit at any time.

[Rasputin]

Measure the luck in cards.

Each board card contains 20% of the luck in a hand.

In NL fewer hands go to the river because the pot odds just aren't there. They end after the flop instead. Therefore they are missing 40% of the luck of the board.

Less luck = less variance.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Measure the luck in cards.

Each board card contains 20% of the luck in a hand.

In NL fewer hands go to the river because the pot odds just aren't there. They end after the flop instead. Therefore they are missing 40% of the luck of the board.

Less luck = less variance.

[/ QUOTE ]



BRILLIANT

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Measure the luck in cards.

Each board card contains 20% of the luck in a hand.

In NL fewer hands go to the river because the pot odds just aren't there. They end after the flop instead. Therefore they are missing 40% of the luck of the board.

Less luck = less variance.

[/ QUOTE ]



BRILLIANT

[/ QUOTE ]


HAHAAH sponger's posts always crack me up

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
Measure the luck in cards.

Each board card contains 20% of the luck in a hand.

In NL fewer hands go to the river because the pot odds just aren't there. They end after the flop instead. Therefore they are missing 40% of the luck of the board.

Less luck = less variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether this is serious or not

[sthief09]

he is right in a way. super-short term, there's more variance on NL. he's just not thinking of long term. he's thinking of the next 10 hands. you stand to lose a lot more in NL in the next 10 hansd than limit.