[sweetjazz]

Hock,

I don't play the high stakes games and consequently what I have to say is limited to general comments on variance. There have been various posts of mathematical models of the variance associated with limit hold em. The basic gist of it is this:

If you win more than 2 BB/100, then you're unlikely to experience very many large downswings (say 500BB+). Indeed, even 200-300 BB downswings will be pretty rare, though they will happen.

If you win less than 1 BB/100, you will experience large downswings on a not infrequent basis (perhaps once every couple of months for people who play a lot of hands). If you're actual rate is at 1 BB/100, the variance will probably be tolerable [depending on how much running bad leads to tilt] but unpleasant at times. When your winrate drops below that appreciably (say 0.5 BB/100), the downswings will be pronounced and fairly frequent. The bankroll requirements for such a game are quite high, and I suspect many (if not most) people don't have the self-control to maintain the bankroll and tilt avoidance necessary to maintain that slim edge in the long term.

Personally, the biggest weakness in my game BY FAR is having my play deteriorate when I run bad. I'd much rather win, say 2 BB/100 in a 10/20 game than 1 BB/100 in a 30/60, even though the latter is more money (numbers picked for simplicity -- not my actual winrates), because I'd prefer to end more sessions in the green and avoid pronounced downswings.

As far as what to do about variance, if I were you, I would strongly consider the possibility that your winrate is around 0.5 BB/100. This is likely an underestimate, but it's worth at least considering the worst case scenarios. Do the math to see what your bankroll requirements are. Make sure you are financially prepared for the downswings that will happen again. (This means both having enough liquid assets available and the ability to fund your account in a reasonable amount of time as needed. You might already have this covered, but I thought it should mentioned as something everyone should do for their own situation.) And then brace yourself psychologically for running bad. Honestly assess how you dealt with it this past time. If you managed to play reasonably well, even though not your "A" game, that's pretty good in my opinion. In my personal experience, I have found that my "A" game has, on a handful of occassions, deteriorated to a "C" or "D" game, where I was playing at best breakeven poker. That has been my sign to be careful and measured whenever I move up in limits. It sounds like you don't have this problem; unfortunately, you are playing in games where giving up even smaller edges can squeeze your already (relatively) thin edge in the game overall.

My suspicion (which isn't worth much given my lack of experience) is that the long-term high stakes winners will come in two varieties:
(1) A few players who are just significantly better than the others [the best of the best, if you will] who have higher true winrates and experience less frequent and less pronounced downswings.
(2) A few very good players who manage to consistently play close to their "A" game and/or are very careful with their bankroll management.

I suspect that the edge in the game is thin enough that people who are wasteful with their winnings and capable of tilting when running awful (which could happen even to someone who plays tilt-free "most" of the time) will end up going broke even if they are winners. Even if the high limit games are not at this stage yet, their eventual evolution to this point seems like a foregone conclusion. (Of course, it's not clear *how fast* that evolution will take place, and I have no intuition for this.)