Jump to content

Variance And The Buy In Level...

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 MSchu


    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:03 AM

Variance and the buy in level...

I am curious as to opinions of Variance at different buy in levels.
I was having a discussion the other day and was somewhat insistent that Variance is much higher at lower Buy In levels of play(1/2-1/3 versus say 2/5-5/10) based on the fact that table play at those LLNL levels can be very unpredicateble and varied... and that as you rise through the BI levels variance(while it may have more of an effect on our stack) occurs at a lower rate because table play is more consistently good.

thoughts? is variance consistent throughout?

#2 HighwayStar


    Tangled up in blue.

  • Members
  • 8,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:50 AM

If there is an actual answer to this then its probably the opposite of what you say.

Your variance is a function of you and your opponents playing styles and your winrate. The more loose aggressive you and the other players are, the more variance there will be. The lower your winrate, the higher variance you will experience. In general, you're more likely to have a lower winrate and run into more loose aggressive players at higher limits so variance increases with stakes.

Play at low limits, whilst unpredictable, is far more likely to be a version of a loose passive style than anything else.

#3 MSchu


    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:01 AM

variance is a function of your winrate? really?

Variance is the variation from expected equity, +/-, based on your statistical averaged win rate, I dont think varance is influenced by winrate.

I guess my contention is that luck has a MUCH LARGER influence or more appropriately, incidence of occurance, at LLNL(as a general overall blanket statement) than it does at Higher levels because at higher levels the play is more refined and typically much better. Certainly Variance is influenced by play... play type/style.
Some say that when playing skills go up(higher BI levels), that the effects of those skills on your winrate will cause higher Variance.

is there more good fortune/LUCK at lower levels than at higher levels based on the bad play of beginners?

I am just curious about others opinions.

#4 bigcoled


    Man Without A Plan

  • Members
  • 1,719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Farge, Wisconsin
  • Interests:Poker, pizza, and beer

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:01 PM

It completely depends who is playing. You cannot insinuate that people that can afford to play higher limits are better players. You cannot judge a single player's play seperate from any given table dynamic. It's hard to be specific enough, or to generate a sterile enough situation to give a blanket statement. There is no ranking system or achievement system for players that can generate an uncontrolable table dynamic for any given period of time, it is a parallel to the free market in that wealth can flow in from different angles, to profit you must be congnizant of the openings and varying angles, most importantly, being capable of making a profit in the most varied forms, or to keep oneself in games where a certain style can be utilized for a consistant edge/profit. The end is profit. In this sense profit relevant to what is risked and in relative proportion to larger games. I don't think any great difference could be assumed, there will simply be, in any situation, only so much money to be made, and players have to put themselves in the best situation to collect that money. The game dynamics may change but I wouldn't foresee any great influx of money to the table at a lower buy in to make it proportionatley more valuable. In fact, I would assume players at higher levels will be more apt to rebuy at full buy in amounts and continue to work those buy ins around to make money, with more angling players playing more levels of play to create beneficial action. Certainly more mental energy might be exerted, but proportionatley, in the end I feel it you're playing for more you probably have more to risk, more full buy ins at stake, and because of the increased mental energy at play, more volatility in pride to keep invested players playing on horrible runs, or battling relentlessly against a player that has them leveled.

#5 Mahalo


    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLHE

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:00 AM

I can understand the OP's stance and view, however variance at lower stakes is lower because the games although having more multi-way pots are much less aggressive. Situations like 5/bet shoving are infrequent and in fact very rare in games like NLHE. In very aggressive games then you can easily lose ten buy-ins in a session. At lower stakes games then this is very rare. Obviously a lot depends on stake levels, game type, opponent type, our own style. Playing full ring for example means that we will lose a larger number of pots that we play because we will simply be folding a higher percentage.

However when we fold pre then we lose no money and so this doesn't affect our immediate variance. In higher stakes games then it becomes necessary and theoretically correct to push small edges and you cannot wait for large overlays at high stakes in the same way that you can at lower stakes. I don't think variance is an exact science in terms of being able to accurately pin a figure on it without considerable data but your monetary swings are greater in terms of bb/ptbb higher up.
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk

#6 daveharvey


    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:07 AM

pop em on the river

#7 fighter


    2009 Year of the grind

  • Members
  • 2,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:54 PM

View PostMSchu, on 13 October 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

variance is a function of your winrate? really?

Variance is the variation from expected equity, +/-, based on your statistical averaged win rate, I dont think varance is influenced by winrate.

Create the graphs for yourself.


He is whatever the term for greater than right is.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users