why all the mad swings in 6max?

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it comes down to agression level. The current trend in the HUSH forums seems to be very agressive. It is a mentaility of maintaining the initiative, control, and forcing others to play YOUR game.

I don't pound away quite as relentlessly as some here. Some might criticize me for being weakish passive-agressive. But, my swings are nowhere near as bad as other here have posted. I can only think of 1 time in the last 30,000 hands or so that i lost more than 150 BB before things started to turn in the other direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example means very little. I also do not have a higher than 150 BB downswing in my 30K+ hands at 5/10 and I play a more aggressive style. Maybe a passive style stays out of more marginal situations but then you also don't win as much, which also leaves you vulnerable to a downswing.

[IGMorton]

note i used the words "very aggressive". i guess it's hard to know what each other means by 'very'. when i referred to the "current trend" i was talking about people aiming to reach 30/20/2.5.

at PP 3/6 i'm running 23.5/17.5/1.8. I consider myself passive-agressive. i don't keep pushing when i meet resistance, but i don't fold much either when i have a hand. am i too weak-tight?

[yanicehand]

[ QUOTE ]
swings?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really, really hate you. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Poldi]

I gotta say I love the swings [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Sure it feels awful to go through a downswing but so many players have problem with tilt and if you dont, that must be another edge I dont wanna miss [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[toby]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it comes down to agression level. The current trend in the HUSH forums seems to be very agressive. It is a mentaility of maintaining the initiative, control, and forcing others to play YOUR game.

I don't pound away quite as relentlessly as some here. Some might criticize me for being weakish passive-agressive. But, my swings are nowhere near as bad as other here have posted. I can only think of 1 time in the last 30,000 hands or so that i lost more than 150 BB before things started to turn in the other direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reading an archive of davidross's journals, and he said when he switched to a more aggressive style (the HUSH way) variance was much less than when he played passively. His sample size was humongous, so that pretty solidly contradicts what you are saying. Just a thought

[sammy_g]

I honestly don't believe the swings are really that different. There are two factors that make the swings appear larger:

1. You play 50% more hands per hour in a 6 max game, so the hourly swings are larger even when SD/100 is not significantly larger.

2. Many people move to the 6 max games from smaller games (say 2/4 full to 5/10 6 max). Since the higher limits are tougher, their win rates are lower. Lower win rates mean larger and more frequent downswings.

And this is coming from someone who has experienced huge swings at 10/20 6 max. The reason, though, is that my win rate is small at that limit, so the swings are expected. It's not because the game is short.

But Jeff W says it better than me.

Link

That is a very interesting thread, btw.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Many people move to the 6 max games from smaller games (say 2/4 full to 5/10 6 max). Since the higher limits are tougher, their win rates are lower. Lower win rates mean larger and more frequent downswings.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think swings at shorthand are much worse than swings at full ring. I think that the above quote only tells part of the story.

I don't know what the other part of the story is. All I know is that given my experience at 2/4 full ring and my experiences at shorthand, the lower winrate is not enough to explain the depth and types of sustained downswings/long breakeven streaks.

Krishan

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the other part of the story is. All I know is that given my experience at 2/4 full ring and my experiences at shorthand, the lower winrate is not enough to explain the depth and types of sustained downswings/long breakeven streaks.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the combination of increased variance in the game - because the nature of the game involves repeatedly taking smaller edges - and lower win rates.

In theory, if the game obeys a normal distribution, swings are proportional to variance/win rate (variance = standard dev ^ 2).

As Jeff W says in the thread linked above, a common SD for 100 hand samples in full ring is 15BB, while 17 is more common for 6-max. Let's suppose a 2BB/100 winner at full ring moves to 6-max and has a win rate of 1.5BB/100 there.

Then variance/win rate moves from 112.5 to 192.67, a 70% increase: you'll see swings that are 70% larger on average.

Guy.

[JDErickson]

To go along with this topic.

Is there anyway to lower the variance at 6 max games?

Everyone knows that Agressive play is the preferred method of play.

Is it possible to lower agression a bit and tighten up to lower variance but still keep an acceptable win rate?

Or is there another method to lower variance?

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the other part of the story is. All I know is that given my experience at 2/4 full ring and my experiences at shorthand, the lower winrate is not enough to explain the depth and types of sustained downswings/long breakeven streaks.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the combination of increased variance in the game - because the nature of the game involves repeatedly taking smaller edges - and lower win rates.

In theory, if the game obeys a normal distribution, swings are proportional to variance/win rate (variance = standard dev ^ 2).

As Jeff W says in the thread linked above, a common SD for 100 hand samples in full ring is 15BB, while 17 is more common for 6-max. Let's suppose a 2BB/100 winner at full ring moves to 6-max and has a win rate of 1.5BB/100 there.

Then variance/win rate moves from 112.5 to 192.67, a 70% increase: you'll see swings that are 70% larger on average.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Maybe this does account for all of it. Thanks Guy. It's good to have math people around.

Krishan