Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

They all look really bad to me too.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

[ QUOTE ]
They all look really bad to me too.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no basis for this statement because not enough information was provided in the hand histories.

Are these standard plays I'd make against solid 1/2 regulars? No.

The difference between ok players and good players is adjusting to the particular circumstances and opponents. That's what I was trying to do in these hands, and given the opponents and how they were playing I think my plays were actually pretty good. Maybe better than that.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

So can you share with us what reads do make these plays correct?

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Actually, on the second hand I'm not sure what I was thinking on the flop. Maybe just a multitabling mistake that worked out.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

If these few hands are any indication of how you regularly play then there is absolutely no question as to why you experience such skyhigh variance. Expect more astronomical variance in the future(good and bad).

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

those hands are drop dead atrocious just admit it. this is the [censored] i see day in and day out and i lose lose lose, and i say to myself what is going on here? are these guys just champions, or lucky monkeys?

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

They are laggy spewtardarific, but atrocious is a nice word too.

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

hock those plays are inexplicably bad regardless of reads for the most part

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

Just want to say that if I showed anyone of these hands to anyone on my AIM list and said doughnutz played it the response would be "typical doughnutz".

Re: MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)
 

metagame, duh