Variance and Game format
Hey all
Just a thought bouncing around in my head after playing some HORSE tourneys of late. Basically, we all know the evil monster known as variance, but I can't recall any kind of discussion regarding the comparison of the influence of variance based on the game format.
I've heard / debated with others that in Hold 'Em (NL), and have heard people basically estimating that the game is 70% skill and 30% luck. Now, I'm curious as to what everyone would consider to be the highest variance (and therefore least skilled, and maybe least EV) game?
Mark
Just a thought bouncing around in my head after playing some HORSE tourneys of late. Basically, we all know the evil monster known as variance, but I can't recall any kind of discussion regarding the comparison of the influence of variance based on the game format.
I've heard / debated with others that in Hold 'Em (NL), and have heard people basically estimating that the game is 70% skill and 30% luck. Now, I'm curious as to what everyone would consider to be the highest variance (and therefore least skilled, and maybe least EV) game?
Mark
Comments
I didn't vote yet. Highest variance does NOT mean either least skilled or least EV game. Games with more variance could be very skillful and +ev.
I've already been debating on MSN as to what exactly is meant by variance.... should be an interesting discussion..
Mark
Under-caffeinated cosign
I also agree with the above 2, that variance and skillfulness of the game don't necessarily go hand in hand. What game would you rather play at holdem with a table of maniacs, or PLO with a table of tight nits?
Variance, I guess, is somewhat vague. Do we mean the fluctuations in your stack at the table as variance? Do we mean the amount of time that the better hand holds up? Do we mean something else?
Example: If I can go up or down 200 BB in a session of Limit, but 1000BB in a session of NL, then NL surely has more variance in this regard. However, if I can flop the nuts in NL and bet so that more people will go away, whereas in Limit it's only a small amount I can make and therefore get sucked out on more, then Limit has the higher variance. Or are we referring to something else such as "My aces have been cracked 7 out of the last 10 times" -- well, that's just variance because they should hold up xx% of the time....
Maybe I should know this already, but when us players refer to variance, what exactly are we talking about? Anyone care to suggest a definitive POV for this poll?
Mark
A couple of disclaimers. First, "variance" is actually not a "thing." I guess you should call the "thing" dispersion. Variance is just a measure of that. "Decreasing variance" would be something like "making kilograms bigger" if you're trying to lose weight or something. Second, what is commonly thought of as variance is the possibility of losing in a given set of hands even if you're a winning player. So it's not like anyone's complaining of the variance of a game where you win either $10000 or $20000 even though the variance is huge in such a game. Third, we can't actually decrease the variance, so to speak, without compromising our EV. What most people want is to increase the probability that one's up after a given set of hands.
full article:
Articles :: Thoughts about winrates and variance :: DeucesCracked :: Free Poker Videos :: Poker Coaching :: Win at Poker :: Top Poker Coaches
Given the bold definition, I believe Limit Hold'em is higher variance than most of the other games, with possibly the Omaha Hi games being higher.
Fully caffeinated +1
NLHE tournaments probably has the highest variance. While great NLHE tournament players with many cashes may have never won a big prize, Jamie Gold is #1 in all-time earnings simply because of ONE NLHE tournament!
Online I have over 50,000 hands playing limit.... I get a standard deviation of about 17.
I have about 40,000 hands playing NL and ... I get a standard deviation of about 17.
Live, I've had the highest variance in terms of big blinds, playing 2/5 limit at Brantford.
I was a losing player except for 2 huge monster wins of 1824 and 1285 that I got at the very end of my 2/5 limit career. (yeah I know tiny sample size)
Live, I find I have *less* variance playing no limit than I do playing limit.
I find I have *less* variance playing deep stack (200+ BB stacks) no limit than playing short (50 BB stacks).
This sounds the opposite of what you would expect. Right?
Isn't that what I just said? ... or am I being leveled here... duh?
Your being punked...... now back to the textbooks.
Basically variance is luck. If you get 4 outered on the river, one night, that's negative variance. You are going to win the hand on the river 90% of the time, but you lost.
If you get all your money in the pot, in the same 90% ahead situation 100 times. Statistically, you should win, 90 out of 100, but that's when variance kicks in. Since 100 is a small sample size, you would have to get in the same situation many many more times, in order for your actual statistics to say you're won 90% of those situations.
Really, in a life time playing live, you still won't come close to evening out your variance, because you can't possibly get that many hands in.
Read or listen to Barry Greenstein's book for some simple explanations of this.
add in farha and degenamine and i'd say even more
Probably not, because the chances of being outplayed are much lower.
This would depend a great deal on your own skill, of course.
I believe the OP is more interested in variance between games in general, not just on a single hand of any given game.
How does one go about measuring variance for the different levels?
PLO hi/lo
And twice as many chances to think you can win
I may not be understandiong this properly, so be gentle with your reply (GREG!)
just guessing who may comment
Milton Slim