"loose" play and variance

[sherbert]

Umm, if it is bollocks, could you say why?

Thanks.

[Big Dave D]

god its late [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Briefly, in NLHE a tight player can be ground up by loose good players simply because in that game, you just don't hit enough flops that hard, ergo tight players, especially weak ones, never really know where they are. And even tight aggresive ones may not get paid off enough.

The reason why PLO better suits tight play, especially when the game as a whole is very loose, is that he can play a wider variety of high % hands than in NL, and is more likely to hit flops with them. Note we are not comparing apples to apples here. A tight NL guy is probably well below 20, if not 10% preflop. In PLO he's probably at 25%.

Or another way, a loose good player will often find himself in situations where he is a small favourite, but no more. These add to his winrate, but juice up his SD, as he will miss a lot of them too. A tight player simply will not be in those spots. He gets less variance, but pays for it with a reduced win rate, unless his game is very very loose.

gl

dd

[pete fabrizio]

Um, I agreed that the variance was higher, I just said that the increase in winrate outpaced the increase in variance, so that winrate/standard deviation increased. Do you disagree with that as well?

And as for your annoyingly repetitive prying into my personal business, WDYGFY?

Cheers.

[Big Dave D]

On your first point, I was really addressing Sherbert as to why I thought it was a fallacy. I also feel that the CV as you call it, would be higher for the looser player, but I would guess the difference is not that significant, or at least quite small. However the tight player benefits from a lot of meta game factors, such as being less liely to be tilted, more likely to be able to bluff etc.

Thanks for the acrynonm, I enjoy new ones.

If I offended you, I must apologise, but I do not think the question is unreasonable. You have set a quite high-handed tone for a lot of your posts and have been quite roughly dismissive of others. You then posted a win rate that I felt was fairly exceptional. If you are that much better than the rest of us, why are you asking questions? Its almost a question of credentials. What and how I am doing is public record so I have no shyness there.

I guess that I have always seen these forums as give and take. As far as I can see, you haven't done much giving..in fact I believe you have only ever asked questions and not replied much if at all to others queries.

But I should WDYGFY. I'm outta here.

dd

[pete fabrizio]

Um, I'm not trying to sell books here, so I don't think I need to whip out my credentials any time I want to criticize someone's play -- or their ideas about the game. If you don't like my opinion on a topic, feel free to dismiss it at no charge.

[sam h]

Not really my game, but two thoughts re which style is more profitable.

1) I think the looser style does better shorthanded, since there are more marginal situations. In general, I think the key to the loose style is not just to take advantage of marginal situations but also to create them with the knowledge that you will play them better than your opponents.

2) I have seen some loose players crush PLO games, but always in live games. I used to watch Alex Brenes play at least 50% of his hands and roll over the game (usually shorthanded), because he was a great reader, a coldhearted bluffer, and had a knack for slithering away cheaply when his opponents really did have big hands. But its hard for me to see this working so well online. Maybe your style is somewhere in between this kind of play and standard ultra tight, seeing 20% of flops.

[Graham]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, if it is bollocks, could you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]


cos tighter play means you'll be in a greater proportion of situations where you have bigger hands and hands with redraws, - consequently, you'll hold up or outdraw more often...when you do get heavily involved.

Looser play means you'll be sucked out on more or hit second best more of the time.

[Atropos]

I think you cannot simply say which style is better, loose or tight. If you play really loose, you need to have a very deep understanding of the game + player reads, because you though you have more +ev opportunities, you have more opportunities to make blatant errors too. I personally prefer a more tight style, since with a loose style the variance will be alot higher, and nobody can play his perfect game on a very very big downswing, which takes away some +EV. On the other hand I dont believe that you start playing better when winning very very big, I personally tend to play a bit weaker too. So a constant win seems to be best for me --> Tight

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]

Briefly, in NLHE a tight player can be ground up by loose good players simply because in that game, you just don't hit enough flops that hard, ergo tight players, especially weak ones, never really know where they are. And even tight aggressive ones may not get paid off enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have to be agreed on our terms here. Most of my experience is PL HE, but it's useful to compare one game with another. You are right that a tight player can be forced into a shell in a big bet HE game - although I know one or two very tight players - the less than 10 per cent you mention - who will come out guns blazing when they hit or when they have a big hand. In other words, by definition a good player will not be cowed in a loose agg. game. But it does mean that he will end up playing fewer hands and it is here where his variance, I believe, shoots up. The more loose agg the game, the more selective you need be with the hands you take to the flop (and beyond).

In limit HE Sklansky proposes that if it is six-ways PF and routinely being capped virtually the only hands you can play are AA-QQ and AKs/AQs. You will win but it will be incredibly boring. You will also find your hands being routinely cracked. So your ev may be good - on each hand - but variance will be enormous. The pots, when you win them will always be enormous, but there will be long dry spells when your hands, including sets etc, are busted.

I think, broadly that that model applies in PLO too.

[ QUOTE ]


The reason why PLO better suits tight play, especially when the game as a whole is very loose, is that he can play a wider variety of high % hands than in NL, and is more likely to hit flops with them. Note we are not comparing apples to apples here. A tight NL guy is probably well below 20, if not 10% preflop. In PLO he's probably at 25%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean, although if we are agreed on what makes a good player, then very few can play less than 10 per cent preflop in NL – surely by definition they would start to fall under the banner of bad player in that instance?

Also note I didn't say loose, but loose aggressive - this is a critical distinction. As a reductio ad absurdum analogy: imagine the perfect loose passive game. Here the TAG player is in paradise. On the button he can raise with abandon; everybody will call the raise but none reraises. On the flop it is simply a matter of playing to the nuts as all nine OPs are going to the showdown. When you have a hand, you bet, not to protect it but to get more money into the pot. None of the OPs ever bets, they just call bets.

Your win rate will be enormous and I should imagine your SD as low as it could possibly be.

Contrast that with the worst case scenario. You are a TAG player, who usually sees the flop with 25 per cent of his hands. But in this game, the UTG will always bring it in with a raise. UTG + 1 reraises and then one player will always go all in. You are on the button. What hands can you call with here? I'd say very few as the implied odds on many of your hands are shot to pieces. And when you do call or raise all-in with your aces, you are always a dog as over half the field has called the all-in reraise. So you are no longer playing the PLO tight player’s 25% ratio of hands preflop, but far less. And when you do enter the fray, your hands are far more likely to be cracked than in a loose passive game. The loose agg. players will constantly be putting you to the test on the flop as well. Bear in mind this scenario frequently plays out in the bigger online games. The tight player has raised PF; one caller. The caller leads out on the flop; you figure him for a draw and raise. He reraises all in. If you could see his cards and knew he was only on an eight outer OESD you would be a decent favourite here. But the fact of the matter is that this pushes up your SD as your whole stack is in play. This is a scenario that crops up time and time again online. Players feel compelled to get it all in on the flop. Your variance I would argue, must go up.

A tight agg. game would be the worst scenario possible but fortunately, they don’t occur that often in PLO.

[ QUOTE ]

Or another way, a loose good player will often find himself in situations where he is a small favourite, but no more. These add to his winrate, but juice up his SD, as he will miss a lot of them too. A tight player simply will not be in those spots. He gets less variance, but pays for it with a reduced win rate, unless his game is very very loose.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the tight player in this case is playing a straightforward game to the nuts. Fine, but if he is in the LAG model I have concocted it will be a far bumpier ride.

[Big Dave D]

Sherbert,

You're hypothesizing from what may happen to a PLHE game to a PLO game. Firstly, the example of lots of players going allin is not useful. It happens very rarely, and almost never in live games. I am assuming of course that these are significant allins and not just tiny stack gambling ones. If the tight player has AA double suited he will not be a favourite to win the pot, but he will be very +EV. Cest la vie.

Your example of more realistic play is, not to be rude, a bit silly. If the LAG has 8 outs, why does this shoot up the tight player's variance. If my foe only has 8 pure outs to win I am happy to go allin every time. Variance in PLO is caused by 50-50 and 60-40 situations which happen all the time. But not as much to tight players. Remember your original post was that a tight player would have a bigger SD than a loose aggressive one in a loose game. I still don't see how you get this. The key point is that it is harder to push tight players around in PLO than in any other game, because 25% of hands, for example, would include a lot of hands like 4 card wraps, which will hit flops that a LAG may be inclined to push at.

gl

Dave
-------
http://internetpokerpro.blogspot.com/