Variance in different forms of poker

[ohnonotthat]

Now would someone tell gergery.

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.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your intuition is wrong. A big winrate will cushion you psychologically when it comes to variance. It's a lot easier to deal with a $200/hr standard deviation when you are winning $200/hr than if you are winning $20/hr. The reason is that with the bigger winrate you will lose money only 1 out of every 6 hours on average, while if your winrate is $20/hr you will average losing money almost 1 out of every 2 hours ( a little less).

The swings, however, are the same. Both players will average being $100 under their winrate the same number of times over a given sample of similar sessions, for example.

edit- added 2nd para.

[Quicksilvre]

I'd estimate that a $1-$2 NLHE game is about the same as a $4-$8 or $6-$12 limit game (i.e. one with a $2 or $3 SB). I have no proof other than Eyeballing It, but it seems to be realistic to me.

[ohnonotthat]

Are we talking about the win rate for similarly skilled players (similar as in both excellent for this game/limit, both very good for this G/L) ?

If so, I more or less agree. A VERY good (8 on a scale of 1-10) 5-10 limit player should be able to earn $20+/100 hands; I don't play alot of NL but this sounds about right for an "8" at NL with blinds of 1 and 2.

As for varience . . . hard for me to say but I'm guessing these two hypothetical players should have similar S-Ds.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If so, I more or less agree. A VERY good (8 on a scale of 1-10) 5-10 limit player should be able to earn $20+/100 hands; I don't play alot of NL but this sounds about right for an "8" at NL with blinds of 1 and 2.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's about the right win rate for a good NL $100 player, with a big blind of $1.

My reason for thinking this is not psychological. Lets go to the extreme, if you suck and lose every hand you play in poker you will have a low variance (and a bad winrate). If you are winning all hands played you will also have a low variance. If you win half your hands and lose the other half, your variance will be high.
So being far away from the rest of the table in terms of skill will decrease your variance.
Is that reasoning correct? (I am not sure)

[ohnonotthat]

A very good NL player in a game with blinds of .50 and $1 should win $20 per hundred hands ?

If this is true I find it amazing that anyone would play limit.

Are you saying that the best of the 10-20 limit bunch is earning no more than the best of the 1-2 blind N-L players ?

I respectfully disagree; it cannot be so. You are saying that there are a significant number of people out there who are 3-tabling 100 NL and earning $30+ per hour ? (This assumes 50 hands per hour which is about average).

It would then follow that the internet is awash with players 4-tabling 200 NL and earning in excess of double this. (The extra table compensating for the lesser win rate)

I'm aware that the competition at small NL is atrocious; the 1-2 live in A.C. is a joke and the 2-5 is only a little better but this just cannot be.

If you stand by your claim that this is run of the mill money for small NL, where does it end ?

I'm aware that the competition gets tougher as we move up but this seems to suggest that there are more than a few people out there who have a legitimate shot for mid-six figures in 2006 and that the really good (as in REALLY good) ones just might make 1,000,000.

As insane as that sounds when you first hear it, remember - a million per year is only 500/hour for a 40-hr-week worker and 250 for someone with no outside life.

I have heard claims from people whose word is gold of having long-term win rates for LIVE 5-10 blind NL that would shock the avarage person but therein lies the key.

Few people would describe online limit as being harder to play than live but NL - it's just made for live play. I would think the disparity between the good and the excellent, live vs online, would be much smaller on a computer.

Please respond - if I'm wrong I REALLY want to know and you'll be doing me a HUGE favor by telling me.

Best wishes for the holiday,

- Chris

[Python49]

um, 10ptbb/100 at 100 nl = 10x2 = $20.

Yes.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
A very good NL player in a game with blinds of .50 and $1 should win $20 per hundred hands ?

If this is true I find it amazing that anyone would play limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true.

There are reasons to play limit. It may be easier to multitable to a higher degree in limit and to get in more hands per table-hour. You may be able to find bigger limit games. Some people win at limit and lose at NL. There are many books on limit that can point you in the right direction but no good book I know of for NL cash games (HOH is for tournament play with shorter stacks).

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that there are a significant number of people out there who are 3-tabling 100 NL and earning $30+ per hour ? (This assumes 50 hands per hour which is about average).

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, when I 4-table NL $100 6-max, I get over 300 hands per hour, and my average has been just over $70/hour (+- $15/hour).

[ QUOTE ]
If you stand by your claim that this is run of the mill money for small NL, where does it end ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I'm investigating this myself. Before the Mid-High NL forum split, there was a thread that suggested 5 PTBB/100 is a good rate for NL 600+. The games may have gotten softer since then.

By the way, the SSNL FAQ sugests that 7-8 PTBB/100 is sustained by "fairly good" players. That's very clearly an underestimate for NL 25. It might be more accurate for NL 200 and NL 400, which used to be discussed in SSNL.

[ QUOTE ]
I would think the disparity between the good and the excellent, live vs online, would be much smaller on a computer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a lot to learn, but I regularly exploit leaks of winning players. However, the main source of profit is the fish, who exist at all levels.

You'll be interested in several entries in the August 2005 archive of Tillerman's blog.