A Discussion of Variance

[mosuavea]

In the moving from limit to NL post Pokey posted:

[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, limit has much more volatility than no-limit. I'll say that again, since it sounds so stupid: limit has much more volatility than no-limit. Look at the BB/100 graphs of a selection of limit players, then look at the BB/100 graphs of a selection of no-limit players and you'll quickly realize that the limit players have FAR longer stretches of break-even or losing play, even among good players. There was a well-respected limit player who was OBVIOUSLY good at the game but who had a break-even stretch that lasted 20,000 hands. A decent, winning no-limit player would NEVER have a similar situation occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little backgorund: After playing 75K hands of limit, I decided to switch to NL and had great success. I made the switch in roughly May of last year and have played 140K hands of NL in that time ranging from 25-200 at various sites, mostly at Party and skins.

It is definitely true there is less volatility in NL when compared to limit but saying that a winning player cannot go through a 20K+ range of hands where he/she breaks even /loses I believe is very wrong. I post this image for discussion:

[vulturesrow]

Yeah I thought it was a great post by Pokey, but I think saying a decent NL player should never have a stretch like that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I thought it was a great post by Pokey, but I think saying a decent NL player should never have a stretch like that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll elaborate a little bit more. At lower limits, NLHE isn't about pushing small edges - it's about pushing huge edges. Pushing huge edges is low[er] variance. a 50k breakeven stretch at limit is very normal, because you're pushing small edges. At high limits where the skill level increases significantly - we're talking 400+: i play 200 and the skill level is just as terrible - a pro will have breakeven stretches. Not at small limits.

Or maybe you're right, and you're having your once in a lifetime [censored] run early in your career.

also, try posting in BBV (and reading it) - they are a bunch of jokers but you will actually get fairly accurate responses to stuff like this.

[dardo]

This creates a doubt ... wouldn't it better then to keep at lower levels? And maybe play higher only if someone is ... well ... sharing their money?

regards,

dardo

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]


This creates a doubt ... wouldn't it better then to keep at lower levels? And maybe play higher only if someone is ... well ... sharing their money?

regards,

dardo

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I only need to win at 1 PTBB/100 at NL $200 to make the same as the guy who wins 8 PTBB/100 at NL $25.

[dardo]

I was thinking of playing higher or at 400 NL. At 200 NL it seems you can make a very good profit and don't risk a 20K breakeven ... hmm?

dardo

[mosuavea]

Heres the graphs from individual levels. I played 25/50 concurrently and since this is mainly a discussion of when I moved up having anything to do with a downswing, I combined those graphs.

[thedustbustr]

notice how the higher you are playing the sharper the downswing. why don't you make a post of the last 10 hands or whatever where you got stacked at all three levels.

[Grunch]

mosuavea -

Please don't take this the wrong way.

The graphs you posted of your 200NL and 100NL games remind me of the many graphs I've seen before of players who are outclassed by thier opponents.

I'm not saying you're bad at poker. I don't know your game - and honestly, who am I to judge? But I would like for you to consider the possibility that your results at the higher levels were due in part to misplayed hands.

[dardo]

At the 25/50 NL graph, at the end, there is a period from 56-76K that is practically breakeven.

I tend to think from what I've read around that this is too much, being that lower limits. Of course, I maybe wrong for whatever reson ( the graphs, results, etc ...).

regards,

dardo