Games With Least Variance

[DonkSlayer 1]

Rank them, 1st/top being that of "least" variance that shoudl be experienced by a top player against average players...and try to average full ring/short-handed versions together when you make your decision. I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks.My rank:Omaha Hi-LoStud Hi-LoNL HoldemStud OmahaLimit HoldemShyt on your neighbor

[Frinkenstein 0]

Rank them, 1st/top being that of "least" variance that shoudl be experienced by a top player against average players...and try to average full ring/short-handed versions together when you make your decision. I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks.My rank:Omaha Hi-LoStud Hi-LoNL HoldemStud OmahaLimit HoldemShyt on your neighbor

My list would be:OmahaNL hold emLimit Hold emI don't play the others.Also, I would add that in the hold em world, Sit N Gos have generally less variance than ring games.

[pokerplayer24 0]

Stud8limit omaha8limit omahastudLimit holdemNL holdemPLOStud 8 is hands down the game with the least variance.

[srblan 0]

Rank them, 1st/top being that of "least" variance that shoudl be experienced by a top player against average players...and try to average full ring/short-handed versions together when you make your decision. I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks.My rank:Omaha Hi-LoStud Hi-LoNL HoldemStud OmahaLimit HoldemShyt on your neighbor

I agree with a lot of your list, though I wouldn't put Limit Holdem above PLO as far as variance, they aren't even close. Also, NL can have really high variance, and I think that limit actually might have lower variance (I think the reason that we believe limit has high variance is low limit hold 'em, but I don't think that the variance is necessarily that high).

[Abbaddabba 0]

I love how the word 'variance' has become such an ambiguous term that you can basically toss it into the most inappropriate sentances and no one will question it.By the conventional understanding, i'd guess that any split pot game is going to take the cake.

[Actuary 3]

I love how the word 'variance' has become such an ambiguous term that you can basically toss it into the most inappropriate sentances and no one will question it.

is that a general statement or do you want to quote a particular mis-use?

[Abbaddabba 0]

General statement.

[Actuary 3]

General statement.

like when people think if you play enough hands that your total actual earnings will approach, in absolute terms, your expected total earnings (assuming we could even know the "expected" earnings);)sorry, it was too easy.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I really think it depends on how you're using the term variance. Technically, losing two buy-ins in two hands at NL would be an extreme example of "variance"...but it's actually a pretty "stable" and boring game when played well.In limit, I think the swings are bigger...thus more "variance".

[Sluggo 0]

I completely agree that many people misuse the term "variance." For this purpose, I think variance means the standard deviation of results (often measured in bb/100). Because bankroll requirements are directly derived from variance, we can just compare them to find the ranking. However, it will also depend on playstyle (yours and the opposition's). I would assume that nut-peddling and lagging will have significantly different standard deviations.Does anyone have standard deviation data for all these games?*I don't think normalizing results has a significant effect on the conclusions drawn

[iggymcfly 0]

I really don't see where people get off saying that NLHE has lower variance that LHE. All it takes is one bad hand with the cooler to completely crush your night. I mean by definition, limit hold 'em is limiting bet size, and as such, it also limits variance. I dunno, maybe it's just that I don't feel comfortable playing more than two tables playing NLHE, so I don't get to see the swings even out as fast.Among games I play regularly, I'd say the list is:LHENLHEPLOI'd play stud and omaha games more if you could compact the windows on Party. Holding myself to one table just isn't worth it though unless there's a reasonably large Stud MTT. Those are downright juicy.

[Actuary 3]

iggymcfly,I'll start by saying, I don't know which has more variance.But, although NL Hold'em has the potential for bigger swings, and quite possibly, your best/worst sessions will be NL ones; that does not mean more variance in total. NL may also have a large majority of sessions with harldy any loss/gain.

[Zach6668 513]

Most people don't actually understand the term variance, in its mathematical sense, and misapply it to poker to mean "running bad"...

[iggymcfly 0]

From PokerTracker, my standard deviation for LHE is 17 BB/hr. My standard deviation for NLHE is 91 BB/hr.Of course, that's almost all 6-max where I play ridiculously LAGgy anyway, and it includes the drunken session where I donked off 500 "BB" in one session, but I think the point stands. A game in which you can win or lose two buy-ins in a single hand is going to have higher variance than a game where it is impossible to lose more than 12 BB in a hand.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Most people don't actually understand the term variance, in its mathematical sense, and misapply it to poker to mean "running bad"...

Or that TSAP.

[Actuary 3]

A game in which you can win or lose two buy-ins in a single hand is going to have higher variance than a game where it is impossible to lose more than 12 BB in a hand.

again, possibly correct conclusion, yet totally wrong rationale.Don't confuse Range with Variance.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Speaking of variance...Someone remind me to not go on -65 BB downswings at 20/40 in the future. (It was at -100 BB at one point in the session.)Ugh.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Speaking of variance...Someone remind me to not go on -65 BB downswings at 20/40 in the future. (It was at -100 BB at one point in the session.)Ugh.

Whew ugh is right; I hate 20 BB downswings.By the way, somebody said they used Pokertracker and said they have a 91 BB StD???? What the hell is a "BB" in NL, "big blind"????? I think that's comparing apples and oranges, but then again I don't use pokertracker..

[Zach6668 513]

Whew ugh is right; I hate 20 BB downswings.By the way, somebody said they used Pokertracker and said they have a 91 BB StD???? What the hell is a "BB" in NL, "big blind"????? I think that's comparing apples and oranges, but then again I don't use pokertracker..

Actually, that's a very good point. An NL game with a BB of say $1, doesn't play anywhere near a .5/1 LHE game. It's probably more like 3/6 ish.- Zach

[Actuary 3]

Actually, that's a very good point. An NL game with a BB of say $1, doesn't play anywhere near a .5/1 LHE game. It's probably more like 3/6 ish.- Zach

no.check ave pots.

[Zach6668 513]

no.check ave pots.

Ok, so more like 2/4.

[Actuary 3]

Ok, so more like 2/4.

really?0.50/1.00 NL has $18-28 pot averages?maybe I"m confused as to what you are trying to show.

[Zach6668 513]

really?0.50/1.00 NL has $18-28 pot averages?maybe I"m confused as to what you are trying to show.

That is precisely the range when I look on PP. I'd say crudely, without actually calculating, that the median is around the $20 range for both at the moment.I just mean, a variance of 90 bb in NL would probably be pretty close to something like a 25 BB variance in LHE, given comparable levels. If pot size is the condition for comparing, .5/1 NL and 2/4 LHE are comparable games.- Zach

[Actuary 3]

I'm confused by your 90=25.also, just to be clear, I do not mean to imply that Pot Size correlates to variance of individual players.Although, sure 5/10 has more variance than 1/2, assuming exact same bets, because the values are bigger.but that is not apples to apples.We should be dividing the Stdev by the Mean to get a better statistic.....

[Zach6668 513]

Basically, I'm attempting to compare apples to oranges, like you said.Comparing a statistic from NL to a statistic from LHE cannot really be done unless they are valuated to be based on the same thing.I'm going to look into my PT stats and see if I can make a calculation of some sort.- ZachEDIT - I can't type.