Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:30 PM
AlanBostick AlanBostick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: California
Posts: 127
Default Re: Variance in different forms of poker

Ummmm, no.

Variance shows up not just in differences in kind of outcome (win vs. loss of individual hand) but in quantity: size of pot won vs. amount of money lost.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-24-2005, 07:11 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Here I stand -

corrected AND amazed.

- Oh, and grateful

I see '06 as the year I give NL a hard look.

Is the quoted WR of $70/hour for 4 tables of NL 100 before or after rake rebate ?

BTW, what do you find yourself paying in rake per 100 hands at this level ?

*

One of the reasons - perhaps the major reason - I decided that whatever future there was for me playing online lay with mid-high limit was the obscene role the rake played at the lower limits; I get nauseous when I think of the 1/3 of my income that goes to Uncle Sam but the thought of going 50-50 with the a poker site would lead to projectile vomiting. Sadly, most good or even VERY good 2-4, 3-6 players do leave half their winnings on the table due to the rake.

I'm no communist; I do not think the sites should provide a service and not expect to earn a profit but 50-50 is obscene and it is this aversion to working 40 hours and getting paid for 20 that led me away from small NL - a choice I am beginning to question.

I can play 10-20 or 15-30 online and for all intents and purposes ignore the rake - at least in terms of its % impact. "Ignore" is not the best word - unless one is accustomed to ignoring an expense that is often larger than my mortgage payment; what I meant to say was I have never even considered the rake when choosing where, when or if to play 15-30. These three factors are huge when planning a session of 3-6.

I am also speaking of live games - something I played far too little of this year (or last).

East coast rakes/time fees are an atrocity - second only to California - but $12 hour plus tips is still a steal compared to what one must pay to play small stakes whether they play online or live.

Be aware I am not advocating one "cut off one's nose to spite one's face"; I used to play in (and crush) a PL draw game with a 5% rake and NO CAP, and if this group reassembled tomorrow I'd beat a path to the game but in that case my options were limited; here they aren't. I have never sought out the game with the lowest rake but I have always considered it a major factor at the lower limits while attaching virtually no significance to it as I move(d) up.

*

Again, thanks for your detailed response. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

*

Have a wonderful holiday and a prosperous New Year.



Sincerely,

- Chris
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-24-2005, 08:00 PM
TomBrooks TomBrooks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .5/1 Full Hand
Posts: 671
Default Re: Variance in different forms of poker

[ QUOTE ]
It's also important to note that in and of themselves varience and win rate are unrelated. (The relationship that does exist is the "coefficient of varience").

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the coefficient of varience?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-24-2005, 09:12 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Here I stand -

[ QUOTE ]

Is the quoted WR of $70/hour for 4 tables of NL 100 before or after rake rebate ?

[/ QUOTE ]
The $70 is from the play alone. Rakeback adds a little. Bonuses add a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, what do you find yourself paying in rake per 100 hands at this level ?

[/ QUOTE ]
The computer where I had PokerTracker installed crashed, and I haven't installed it on another yet. (I don't rely on GT+ or any other outside aid, though perhaps I should.) However, if I recall correctly, it was about $8/100.

Have fun trying online NL.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-24-2005, 09:48 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Coefficient of varience

It's the relationship between win rate and varience - more specifically, the WR and SD.

If, for example, you have a win rate at 3-6 holdem of $15 per 100 hands and a S-D of $120/100 hands your coefficient of varience (C.V.) is .8

- Anything above .1 used to be considered great but the xplosion of NL has spoiled us; it's easy these days to find C.V.s of .2 or greater.

Since knowing one is useless without knowing the other, the C.V. provides a ratio you can apply to any game in order to decide whether that game is "good" for you.

A high win rate is of little use if the SD is so high you literally might not live long enough to get into the long run; an overlay on Lotto is a good example. Buying a $1 ticket that has a theoretical value of $3 is not as good as it sounds if your chance of collecting ANYTHING is a million to one.

In poker, a high ante stud game might provide a huge winrate but be so volatile it could take years for you to smooth out the bumps of the short run.

Low draw ("lowball") is also known for having a poor C.V. - unless your opponents are absolutely horrendous it's difficult to find a game with a C.V. better than .05

Some say the reason Holdem took off and left stud and high-draw in its dust was due to the ideal size of its C.V. Poor players almost never won at high-draw while they won too much at stud (assuming a medium to high ante).

If the dummies win too often it's hard for you to make a steady living; if they win too infrequently it's hard to get them to keep coming back.

I'll stop here so as to allow those who have significant experience at all forms of poker to jump in and elaborate on the specifics of how each of the common varieties of poker rate on the list - from highest C.V. to lowest.

Best wishes,

- Chris
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-24-2005, 11:20 PM
Mason Malmuth Mason Malmuth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,831
Default Re: Coefficient of varience

Hi ohnonotthat:

[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, you have a win rate at 3-6 holdem of $15 per 100 hands and a S-D of $120/100 hands your coefficient of varience (C.V.) is .8

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't your CV = .125 not .8 in this example?

Best wishes,
Mason
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-24-2005, 11:24 PM
Mason Malmuth Mason Malmuth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,831
Default Re: Variance in different forms of poker

Hi Aaron:

Your variance at no limit almost always has to be higher due to the fact that you win or lose a very large pot every now and then. However, if you're an excellent player, this is more than compensated for by your win rate (assuming typical weak opponents in either limit or no limit) also being much higher.

Best wishes,
Mason
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-24-2005, 11:26 PM
Mason Malmuth Mason Malmuth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,831
Default Re: Variance in different forms of poker

Hi Cat:

It was always played eight handed in the California cardrooms.

Best wishes,
Mason
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-24-2005, 11:31 PM
Mason Malmuth Mason Malmuth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,831
Default Re: I resemble that remark

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
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-25-2005, 02:46 AM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Too much

eggnog - WAY too much eggnog. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

.125 it is. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Thanks, Mason

Merry Christmas

- Chris

*

Wow, could this be a trend ?

A personal response from Mason . . . If this is a trend I know a guy who will be driving around in a new Jag, courtesy of Santa. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.