Variance is good in tournament poker

[madmisha]

While many winning players fear variance, higher variance is good in tournaments. Take 2 players that both have the same average finish-say their average is 30th percentile, the player with the higher variance will make more money over time, based on the pay structure of tournaments, which disproportionately rewards high finishes.

I think this concept can be used to explain many tournament specific concepts.

Why the best players are more likely LAG's in tourneys, versus TAG's in ring games.

Why players should not avoid even money are slightly EV + plays early in the tourney even if they are better than the average player in the field.

Why the maniac rebuy strategy where players intentionally make EV negative, high variance plays, is successful.

Variance sucks when you have waited all year for the Main Event and you Queens lose to the big stacks AK, but in the world of online poker with limitless opportunities to find a tourney, I say embrace variance.

[JohnFR]

Well said.

[purp]

Interesting

Is this right?

[mornelth]

I say "Yes".

Winning 6 coinflips in a row is a good way to get very deep in a tourney. Winning 6 coinflips in a row takes VARIANCE.

Actually, to win a tournament, you will ALWAYS need to have variance on your good side so that you win enough of 60/40 and 70/30 and even 89/11 "races"... You'll have to win them MORE OFTEN over a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME than the general probability allows for. Hence the "short-term luck" - or variance....

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
While many winning players fear variance, higher variance is good in tournaments. Take 2 players that both have the same average finish-say their average is 30th percentile, the player with the higher variance will make more money over time, based on the pay structure of tournaments, which disproportionately rewards high finishes.

I think this concept can be used to explain many tournament specific concepts.

Why the best players are more likely LAG's in tourneys, versus TAG's in ring games.

Why players should not avoid even money are slightly EV + plays early in the tourney even if they are better than the average player in the field.

Why the maniac rebuy strategy where players intentionally make EV negative, high variance plays, is successful.

Variance sucks when you have waited all year for the Main Event and you Queens lose to the big stacks AK, but in the world of online poker with limitless opportunities to find a tourney, I say embrace variance.

[/ QUOTE ] When you say "the player with the higher variance," can you define that? How exactly do you distinguish between a player with higher variance and a player with lower variance?

[purp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While many winning players fear variance, higher variance is good in tournaments. Take 2 players that both have the same average finish-say their average is 30th percentile, the player with the higher variance will make more money over time, based on the pay structure of tournaments, which disproportionately rewards high finishes.

I think this concept can be used to explain many tournament specific concepts.

Why the best players are more likely LAG's in tourneys, versus TAG's in ring games.

Why players should not avoid even money are slightly EV + plays early in the tourney even if they are better than the average player in the field.

Why the maniac rebuy strategy where players intentionally make EV negative, high variance plays, is successful.

Variance sucks when you have waited all year for the Main Event and you Queens lose to the big stacks AK, but in the world of online poker with limitless opportunities to find a tourney, I say embrace variance.

[/ QUOTE ] When you say "the player with the higher variance," can you define that? How exactly do you distinguish between a player with higher variance and a player with lower variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be that someone willing to take more gambles will have higher variance and the positive variance (good luck) will outweigh the negative variance (bad luck) in terms of actual winnings.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While many winning players fear variance, higher variance is good in tournaments. Take 2 players that both have the same average finish-say their average is 30th percentile, the player with the higher variance will make more money over time, based on the pay structure of tournaments, which disproportionately rewards high finishes.

I think this concept can be used to explain many tournament specific concepts.

Why the best players are more likely LAG's in tourneys, versus TAG's in ring games.

Why players should not avoid even money are slightly EV + plays early in the tourney even if they are better than the average player in the field.

Why the maniac rebuy strategy where players intentionally make EV negative, high variance plays, is successful.

Variance sucks when you have waited all year for the Main Event and you Queens lose to the big stacks AK, but in the world of online poker with limitless opportunities to find a tourney, I say embrace variance.

[/ QUOTE ] When you say "the player with the higher variance," can you define that? How exactly do you distinguish between a player with higher variance and a player with lower variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be that someone willing to take more gambles will have higher variance and the positive variance (good luck) will outweigh the negative variance (bad luck) in terms of actual winnings.

[/ QUOTE ] What does "willing to take more gambles" mean? Does that mean you are more willing to get all your chips in the middle with the worst of it? For instance, does that mean I am willing to get into a coin flip to double my stack when I only have a 45% chance to win, where a TAG player actually requires to have the correct pot odds before he will call?

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While many winning players fear variance, higher variance is good in tournaments. Take 2 players that both have the same average finish-say their average is 30th percentile, the player with the higher variance will make more money over time, based on the pay structure of tournaments, which disproportionately rewards high finishes.

I think this concept can be used to explain many tournament specific concepts.

Why the best players are more likely LAG's in tourneys, versus TAG's in ring games.

Why players should not avoid even money are slightly EV + plays early in the tourney even if they are better than the average player in the field.

Why the maniac rebuy strategy where players intentionally make EV negative, high variance plays, is successful.

Variance sucks when you have waited all year for the Main Event and you Queens lose to the big stacks AK, but in the world of online poker with limitless opportunities to find a tourney, I say embrace variance.

[/ QUOTE ] When you say "the player with the higher variance," can you define that? How exactly do you distinguish between a player with higher variance and a player with lower variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be that someone willing to take more gambles will have higher variance and the positive variance (good luck) will outweigh the negative variance (bad luck) in terms of actual winnings.

[/ QUOTE ] What does "willing to take more gambles" mean? Does that mean you are more willing to get all your chips in the middle with the worst of it? For instance, does that mean I am willing to get into a coin flip to double my stack when I only have a 45% chance to win, where a TAG player actually requires to have the correct pot odds before he will call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gambling with 45% chance because aside from first 3-4 levels the blinds will make the pot odds correct (or almost correct) to gamble for your stack.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gambling with 45% chance because aside from first 3-4 levels the blinds will make the pot odds correct (or almost correct) to gamble for your stack.

[/ QUOTE ] If you have the correct pot odds, that's just good poker, independent of LAG or TAG or whatever. If you are passing up situations where you have the pot odds to call, then of course you are not going to do well.

I think the word "variance" is being used here in a kind of nebulous, vague way. The reasoning is circular:

1. It's good to be LAG.
2. LAG = high variance
3. Therefore, it's good to have high variance.

OR

1. It's good to finish in first.
2. Finishing in first = high variance
3. Therefore, it's good to have high variance.

[multious]

higher variance = more first and last place finished