How bad is variance?

[Bco1/75]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of this has been covered but I will say, if you're aware enough to know that 2+2 exists then you're good enough not to want to buy into NL25 games shortstacked.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. I see a lot of people trying this strategy and any good player exploits its short commings. BUT, I don't too many players apply the pressure. THe Short commings like with a $5 buy-in it is hard to call a $2 raise with a hand that needs help, like KQs-AQ. My dad taught me if you can't afford to leave a good tip, you can't afford to go out to eat. If you can't afford the buy-in, can't afford to "play". If you are playing a table with 1/5 the buy-in you are not playing poker, your playing bingo......Buy-in does not need to be the max of the table but it should be at least the average stack at the table when you sit down.

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's certainly not an optimal strategy but it is the only way I (a limit donkey) can play this evil NL game and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once your conversion over to the Dark Side is complete, you will learn to totally embrace the full buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously blow at NL. Anybody wanna send me a chunk of their hand histories so I can go over them?

[elus2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as variance, there's quite a bit, but in NL it should be a lot less. Granted I play a very low variance style, but I haven't had 2 down sessions back to back in over 2 months. That might be variance in itself, but a good NL player should be winning 65-70% of their sessions. And the sessions that you are down should be fairly small. I have a lot of "down" sessions that are down only 5 or 10bb. So if you're having huge swings, I think it's probably more your style of play (maybe a leak) and not just variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two months is not long enough to draw conclusions about anything. Two years isn't long enough, but a trend should begin appearing by then.

Where do you get the 65-70% of session winning percentage? I think the real number is closer to 53-55%.

My winning percentage by session (per PT) is 49%, however, my PTBB is between 5-6 so my winning sessions more than offset my losing sessions. Having a session where I am down a buy-in or two is not uncommon. Of course, having a session where I up 3 buy-ins is not uncommon either.

I guess my leak is getting my AA cracked 3 or 4 times in a session. Maybe I need to consider folding them to those pre-flop pushes more often [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the 65-70% number from Tillerman's blog. He said that most of the pros he knows win at that rate, and that his rate was 70%. Again, like I said, my style is a low variance style. I don't have big swings. I have a lot of 40-60bb up sessions with the occasional 150-250bb session. And of course, there is also the occasional big down session. And I manage to average 10 big blinds per hour. I've been playing NL for almost a year now. That's just the way my style of play has worked out so far, but I like it.

And of course, two months isn't much, but my point was that variance is something that you can control. And frankly, I think that better players shouldn't have that much variance. If you're having huge swings on a regular basis it's probably because of your style and not simply the dreaded "variance."

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly what variance is. the distribution of the difference between $ won and your true winrate. huge swings = huge variance.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Link to tillermans blog?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://tillerman.net/

I have no idea what entry the 65-70% of winning sessions was. There was a post on here about his blog in which it was mentioned also. If you find that post it might have the specific link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read his blog, but I remember that number from Lederer's videos. By "session", you count your poker playing days, not the Poker Tracker sessions (pt sessions = sit down at a table until you get up).

PT Sessions are totally useless, but I can see how the 70% real sessions works.

[Skuzzy]

The thing with variance is that the 30% of losing sessions can so easily all come at once. I went through October with maybe only 2 or 3 days that were bad, and so far in November have only 2 or 3 good.

Bad play is caused by such things and self doubt permeates my play just now. I had AA or KK seven times in 30 minutes, every time I was OOP preflop and got called. Everytime I pot bet the flop with an overpair and everytime I was hit with a PSR or a min raise. Everytime the flop texture, game cnditions r reads let me know I was clearly beat and I folded but each time the sense of injustice grew more and more. Then I look and see AA on the button, and it's been raised so I reraise and get 1 caller, the flop is checked to me I bet and am check-raised on a ragged flop with rags and a 2 flush by a player who called a 15BB raise preflop. I am wrestling with my mind here torn between two ideas. One, I have the best hand he is likely holding KK/QQ or even drawing at a flush, two I'm being effected by previous hands and am beat and should fold. I fold. He shows KK and types 'had you'. The very next hand I get KK, I'm reraised on a ragged flop I push and am show 44 for the set.

Variance is really really bad because for me because it makes me play badly.

[DWarrior]

How much did he check-raise. The one thing I noticed is that set morons love the min check-raise. I'm more afraid of the min c/r than I am of a real one.

[ThaHero]

Yeah, the thing that makes negative variance worse(and probably ends positive variance faster) is the fact that many times your play will deteriorate. I'm in a downswing now, and I've just been playing badly. But you gotta focus on playing better when you do badly, which is really tough to do. Also, there is another form of tilt called "Winner's Tilt" when you start to underestimate your opponents. That can also be dangerous.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is another form of tilt called "Winner's Tilt" when you start to underestimate your opponents. That can also be dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like playing the next hand no matter what right after you win a pot? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Skuzzy]

Note to self: learn to type and proof read your own posts moron !

DWarrior: I normally read a min raise as an extraction play and this was a min raise. I just felt that my image was that I would fold anything but the nuts if raised or min raised at that time. I felt like the easiest read in the world and I should have gotten up and left the table long ago simply for image reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

U play at party 100NL EST? I have an interesting note if its you.

[ChipWrecked]

I keep BR small due to family concerns. I play .5/.10 NL 6max on Stars.

I make the full $10 buyin, and I look for tables with money on them.

I not only don't want to buy short, I don't want to sit with those who do. I am looking to double up, and you just can't do that against folks with 2, 3, 4 dollar stacks.

Another nice feature of Stars is that players respect aggression. If I pot bet the flop, I often take the pot right there. Keeps variance down, though I did just roar out of a 3000 hand downswing. I'm at just under 9BB/100 on that game now.