6 max MUCH more "swingy" than full ring?

[dethgrind]

These are the conflicting ideas:

1) You play proportionally fewer hands in full ring. Folding preflop is a low variance play. Therefore full ring is a lower variance game.

2) Considering only those hands that you do play, the pots are smaller and contain fewer opponents in 6 max. Small short-handed pots are lower variance than large multiway pots. Therefore 6 max is a lower variance game.

It seems that (1) has a stronger effect than (2), but not by as much as I first thought it would, and many others still think.

[The Funky Llama]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Considering only those hands that you do play, the pots are smaller and contain fewer opponents in 6 max. Small short-handed pots are lower variance than large multiway pots. Therefore 6 max is a lower variance game.

[/ QUOTE ]

For various reasons, players in 6max games play significantly more aggressive than players in full games, which increases standard deviation.

6max is much much swingier.

[Justin A]

The difference between 15 and 17 in this case will be very noticeable on your bankroll.

Also, a player moving from full ring to 6max is likely to have a worse winrate at first while they learn how to play shorthanded.

[KINGOFINLAND]

My standard deviation is between 20 and 25 depending of the site. I don't know what it excatly means, but likely that swings are big..
Just to compare to others.

Let me give you an example of the swings, I know this very good player who plays 100/200 -> 300/600 shorthanded online.
One good player wrote to this forum he is one of the best players in the 300/600 game they both have played.

Still this long term winning player went to $400k losing streak. That's almost 700BB in the 300/600. Granted he plays very loose-agressive and some headsup, but the swings in 6max can be brutall.

[rowdyclassmate]

The swings are greater, yes. Compensate by allocating more BB's to the bankroll. I used to never like short-handed games, but now I have come to enjoy them.

HU play? Those swings are just insane. You figure you are seeing 250 - 300 hands an hour. It's mental warfare... just try not to be a casualty.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Considering only those hands that you do play, the pots are smaller and contain fewer opponents in 6 max. Small short-handed pots are lower variance than large multiway pots. Therefore 6 max is a lower variance game.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't as true as you seem to believe for a solid player. I usually have a good idea when I don't belong in a multiway pot at a full ring table. The better-structured preflop play and the necessity of beating several players often makes it obvious that my cards aren't good enough and I can't bluff either. The result is many low-variance early exits from these multiway pots.

At 6-max a great many pots are heads-up conflicts where the preflop action doesn't carry much meaning because everyone steals and no one folds. When the flop comes you often have no idea whether your little pair or unimproved ace is the best hand. Even if you know you don't have the best hand it's still necessary to frequently bluff in case he missed the flop too.

The result is an awful lot of money pouring into coin-flip pots. Suppose there are 2 BB in the HU preflop pot and you deduce from the flop that your hand is best roughly half the time. Your fair share (pot equity) is 1 BB. Guess what? Often the only way you are going to extract your BB from this pot is to risk another roughly 3 BB playing the hand to the end. Otherwise Villain steals you blind.

And there you are: at the river in an 8 BB pot showing and hoping. Now go back to point #1 about playing so many of these vicious "little" pots. That's the picture of variance in the dictionary.

[dethgrind]

[ QUOTE ]
The result is an awful lot of money pouring into coin-flip pots. Suppose there are 2 BB in the HU preflop pot and you deduce from the flop that your hand is best roughly half the time. Your fair share (pot equity) is 1 BB. Guess what? Often the only way you are going to extract your BB from this pot is to risk another roughly 3 BB playing the hand to the end. Otherwise Villain steals you blind.

And there you are: at the river in an 8 BB pot showing and hoping. Now go back to point #1 about playing so many of these vicious "little" pots. That's the picture of variance in the dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that sometimes 6 max pots are large. I agree. The fact is that on average, they are smaller than full ring pots.

Also, this really isn't the picture of variance in the dictionary. An 8BB pot that you win half the time has a variance of 16. A 20BB pot that you win 1/5 of the time (a large multi-way pot) has a variance of 64. The picture of variance in the dictionary is a large pot that you don't often win. For example, correctly drawing to an inside straight is a high variance play.

And just to make sure were all on the same page, I'm talking about variance per 100 hands. Of course your variance per hour will be significantly higher in 6 max since you play more hands per hour, but that's not what is important for bankroll considerations.

[dethgrind]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between 15 and 17 in this case will be very noticeable on your bankroll.

Also, a player moving from full ring to 6max is likely to have a worse winrate at first while they learn how to play shorthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding, bankroll requirements are proportional to variance divided by winrate. From my knowledge of the polls, the difference in variance between 6 max and full ring is roughly 10%. So if you're ana average player, your winrate will have to increase by 10% in order to use the same bankroll at the same risk when making the switch from full to 6 max.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am disagreeing with the people who say 6 max is "much much swingier" and can devastate your bankroll. Well it can, but not significantly more than full ring, unless you happen to suck at 6 max.

[dethgrind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Considering only those hands that you do play, the pots are smaller and contain fewer opponents in 6 max. Small short-handed pots are lower variance than large multiway pots. Therefore 6 max is a lower variance game.

[/ QUOTE ]

For various reasons, players in 6max games play significantly more aggressive than players in full games, which increases standard deviation.

6max is much much swingier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aggression can also reduce standard deviation. Raising increases the size of the pot but also eliminates opponents, increasing your chance of winning the pot. In the extreme case you have the blind steal, where you eliminate all opponents and have zero variance.

Hmm, that might not be an accurate way of looking at it. I'm no expert on this matter, but I'd say pzhon is. Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
An increased PFR percentage is one of many factors. By itself, it might increase your variance per hand. However, this is not 100% clear. While increasing the size of the pot increases variance, raising preflop may decrease the number of players who enter the pot. It also may be the case that in short-handed games, there are more open raises that pick up the blinds, and blind steals decrease the variance per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

He makes many good posts in this excellent thread on the subject of 6 max versus full ring bankrolls.

I highly recommend anyone interested in this subject to read that thread.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
The picture of variance in the dictionary is a large pot that you don't often win.

[/ QUOTE ]

If wins/losses are binomially distributed, variance is maximum when the probability of winning, p=0.5. It is zero if p=0 or p=1.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, correctly drawing to an inside straight is a high variance play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since p~.1, this is a relatively low variance play.