[ggbman]

Aba,

There is one thing is your post which rings very true. I think people (including myself at times) can often tend to attribute results to variance instead of focusing on their game.

However, while i think this point is critical, the rest of yor post simply is not accurate. I'm not sure if you read this thread, particularly my first post which contains some pretty concrete mathametics about thw swings that a 1 BB/100 winner would experience (And in high stakes limit games, that is a solid earn rate for good players to shoot for). It's a mathamatical fact that a certain percentage of players could not tilt and have MASSIVE downswings as indicated in my OP. I hate to have to keep going off about this, but it's simply mathamatical fact. That's just the obvious math, some poor schmucks will run MUUUCH WORSE than that and have downswings more scary than ones mentioned here purley do to variance.

Now FWIW, pretty much every good NL player i have talked has said that they think you are either the best NL player on the internet right now or hands down in the top 3. So what i'm saying here isn't meant to be an insult or in any way take away from your play, but people don't simply go for .5-1 NL to 300-600 NL in a year without running well above average. You could still be the best player in the world and this would be true, and IMO it has led you to conclude that variance is much less of a factor than it really is. (As anyone with your consistent sucess probably would) But just think of it logically. Imagine someone wh plays just like you, but lost 15-20 more 100K+ pots over the course of the year, mostly coinflips and maybe they don't hit a club against a set in a 250k pot [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], etc... Again, this is not at all an attempt to take away from your amazing accomplishments, but surely you see how easy it would be to have a 2 million dollar difference in results from a few pots going the other way. That should be an indicator that perhpaps you aren't considering how much variance can show itself in results. And of course, as i also said in my OP, the people who have run super bad because of variance for tons of hands are MUCH more prone to tilt or just incorrectly adjust to situations where their adjusts have been several standard deviations from normal of 50k+ hands.

Conclusion: I am jealous of you, but not enough to just pick apart what you are syaing randomly. I would love to pick your brain more given the oppurtunity someday. And i think the point about people quickly looking to attribute their contributions to variance in a nice addition to the thread. But the rest of your point comes off a bit poorly IMO, you have been playing online for something like a year right? Guys like BK, myself, baronzeus, etc... have all had a year without massive downswings and then had them in subsequent years. I'm not saying we have the same edge so it's more likely to some extent, but nevertheless, you have not seen it all yet and one day you will realize that you are simply way off in terms of how much you think variance affects your bottom line.

Gabe