variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

I hope the title is clear, although I concede it might not be.

so: I haven't played much CAP plo (the version on FTP where you can only commit 40bb to a pot at a time) and so I'm really not that sure how it plays, but seeing the 25/50 going regularly has got me thinking: How much would the 'variance' (pardon my impercise usage) in a game like this differ from a game of 10-20 PLO, given that the most you can 'buyin' for, on a given hand, is always going to be just $2000? What sort of impact would this have on the standard deviation, in $$s?

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

I haven't done any math regarding bankroll requirements in these games, but I generally consider them to have have significantly more variance than a typical uncapped game.
I crushed the 5/10 capped game over the summer, but saw 10 cap bet buyin downswings in a session rather frequently. I always played this game with at least 60 cap bets in my roll and felt better with 100 cap bets. I personally wouldn't play the 25/50 seriously with less than a 150k roll, and a big part why that is is psychological. You are going to need to commit 2k far more frequently than in 10/20 and you cant afford to be gunshy.

That said, I am sure there is a ton of money to be made in that game and if you can handle it financially and emotionally I would definitely advise playing it. Cap games often draw some really weak competition and can be very juicy. Additionally, if you are trying to work your way up to normal 25/50 games this is a great transition game.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

I agree. Assuming the level of play is at the same level or higher than the 10/20 game, I think you're variance is going to be much higher for the 25/50 capped game money wise.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

I am currently working on a way of thinking about risk in PLO. It requires an understanding of philosophy and mathematics instead of the blind application of models taken from regular casino games.

It require a pretty long explanation, the paper I'm working on is already over 10 pages. It is a work in progress but I am always looking for people to sample and critique. PM your email address if you're interested in reading.


As far a cap game and variance are concerned, it would depend how people respond to the change. The jumps in win/loss per hand will of course be smaller, but it could be that people bet more money overall(by getting into all-in coups more often) which could actually raise the magnitude of the overall swings, while still maintaining the lower per hand swings. This doesn't have to happen of course, it is merely a possibity. Expectation is of course the amount bet x the equity edge that you get in with. At 25/50 you may be able get in with a smaller edge twice as often which would yield a higher expectation. The more frequent jumps may also be more "tilt inducing" which, if you don't tilt as much as your opponents, could be better off for you.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

I'm also sort of curious as to how my winrate will change playing cap games, where you never get to experience the deep-stacked spots that are a huge source of EV in uncapped games.

my intuition is that the larger flop pots (relative) combined with felting lightly will lead to higher variance vs. the smaller game, but then not having the huge 200+bb pots will keep some of the larger swings in line. Maybe.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also sort of curious as to how my winrate will change playing cap games, where you never get to experience the deep-stacked spots that are a huge source of EV in uncapped games.

my intuition is that the larger flop pots (relative) combined with felting lightly will lead to higher variance vs. the smaller game, but then not having the huge 200+bb pots will keep some of the larger swings in line. Maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

these guys are crazy. the variance in the smaller game is definitely much lower. however, your winrate will also definitely be lower, so your wr/sd may not be much better, if at all.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

you think wr will be lower in the smaller non-cap game?

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

Is there a difference between playing in a cap game and playing short in normal ring game? I guess because everyone else is also short? Or does the name cap bring out the gamblor in everyone?

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

well in a cap game you don't have the advantage of having deep stacks betting each other out of multiway pots on later streets, which is a not-insignificant advantage of PLO short-stacking.

Re: variance in $x/$y PLO vs. $2.5x/$2.5y CAP PLO
 

The problem is that poker results are path dependent. Let me explain. Standard deviation does not differentiate between a series of small changes or a single very large change. Pete isn't quite understanding the question, and the underlying assumtion of standard deviation. It could be he is right that the swings in the 25/50 cap game could be bigger, but for the wrong reasons.

The limiting amount for the 25/50 40BB cap game and the 10/20 100BB+ game, the monetary amount $2000, could be viewed differently by the player in each game. The 25/50 players may think "hey, I only lost 40BB", while the 10/20 could think "damn, I just lost 100+BB" even though they are betting the same amount. There is an undefinable element to the 10/20 game that isn't contained in the cap game. Losses are not capped, which can benefit players who tilt alot less. Other players tilt is a very big part of any PLO players winnings.

The larger relative swings(in BB) per hand of the 10/20 game could induce people to play worse, or perhaps the more frequent(and possibly lower expecation per all-in) swings of the 25/50 game will induce people to play worse. It could also be neutral, I don't know. If I was cmyr I would think about the mistakes that players can make in each game, and play whichever game the weakest relative players were in.