Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)

[Rudbaeck]

What is variance? Obviously those that say 'NL has less variance than limit' don't mean the same thing as I do. Your variance is the width of the swings around the win rate. And that's much, much higher in no limit.

Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.

Variance is lower in one specific scenario though, and that was the norm rather than the exception back when many of these ideas were published. When the opponents are extremely weak-tight and the majority of your gain is based on stealing small pots.

[eekpaypal]

the best way to make money quick...is to be good...i prefer sit n gos

[Tony_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been under the impression that when people said that NL has lower variance than limit, what they really meant was that for stakes that will produce approximately the same winrate, NL will have the lower variance. In other words, even though .5/1NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit, they are not considered to be "equivalent" because a good NL player will be able to win much more at .5/1NL than a good limit player will at 1/2 limit. The rough equivalent to 1/2 limit might be .25/.5NL, for instance. In that case, it's more fair to compare the variance of 1/2 limit to the variance of .25/.5NL. I don't play NL, so I am not sure that this is accurate, but that's what I've taken out of the variance comparisons. Is this correct, Tony?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is my point thatwhile a .5/1 NL Game and a 1/2 Limit game both have blinds of .5/1, the .5/1 Limit game is a higher stakes game.

[Doibluff]

Dude, all I have to say is that if your really that unsure about all that, maybe you should wait a little while (ok, a long time) before even considering going pro.

[DerFleisch]

[ QUOTE ]
...the average online player seems to be much better than the average live player. I am not sure of the reason, I just have observed it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely correct, and here is the reason why:

-Live play: the fish play one table at a time; the sharks play one table at a time.

-Online play: the fish play 1 or 2 tables at a time; the sharks have a wall full of 2001FPs and play 8, 12, 30, 69, or more tables at a time.

The players are not tougher online per se, but you're more likely to run into the tougher players on any given table, due to the multitabling effect.

This is also why Pacific Poker is the fishiest poker site on the 'Net...no multitabling allowed there.

[cpk]

I think that's an important contributor to the effect, but it's not the only story. My working hypothesis is that it's also because merely playing online shows an enthusiasm for the game that B&M players do not generally have. A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will.

This is just a bunch of psychobabble on my part.

[12AX7]

Good advice, no doubt.

Been thinking about the pro route for 6 years. LOL! Just haven't played at all between 2000 and now.

So I agree. Lots of work to do. But just want to put my efforts where they will most likely lead to the desired results. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

No point in spending a lot of time in a format only to find out it was a mistake.

[RoundTower]

Isn't there a FAQ somewhere that has in it "Does limit poker really have bigger swings than NL?"

Why not? Could someone make one or add this question and an answer to an existing FAQ? You can include what I wrote below, although I can't see why you'ld want to.

[ QUOTE ]
Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.


[/ QUOTE ]
"Variance" actually means the square of the number you are talking about above, so you are close enough. It does not mean that people occasionally hit gutshot straights or that winning players run bad sometimes, which is the normal meaning of the word on this site.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.


[/ QUOTE ]
"Variance" actually means the square of the number you are talking about above, so you are close enough. It does not mean that people occasionally hit gutshot straights or that winning players run bad sometimes, which is the normal meaning of the word on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. Variance is the square of the standard deviation. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PJo336]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's an important contributor to the effect, but it's not the only story. My working hypothesis is that it's also because merely playing online shows an enthusiasm for the game that B&M players do not generally have. A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will.

This is just a bunch of psychobabble on my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Live poker seems to be for some more about fun and excitement, whereas people buy in online alot more for the idea of profit and therby try harder. They also see a ton more hands and gain alot quicker experience