|
|
#1
08-16-2006, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Variance is good in tournament poker
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. 
|
|
#4
08-16-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
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....
|
|
#5
08-16-2006, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ 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?
|
|
#6
08-16-2006, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] I doubt any of these concepts can be proven to be the best way to play in tournaments. Just because certain LAG players do well in tournies doesnt mean its right for everyone. Taking marginaly EV plays to build a big stack only works if you know how to use that stack once you have it. Again, proving the maniac rebuy strategy is best is open to debate. I also doubt that the best ring game players are TAG.
|
|
#7
08-16-2006, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ 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.
|
|
#10
08-16-2006, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
higher variance = more first and last place finished [/ QUOTE ] I can see how high variance play (LAG/maniac/whatever you want to call it) leads to more last place finishes, but not necessarily more first place finishes. In tournaments you're going to have to take some chances to build your stack. It doesn't matter when you take those chances. A lot of people seem to argue that in order to be succesful in a tournament, you need to have a certain stack size at the first break or whatever. But if can twice as often have half that many chips at the first break and then quickly get all-in as a slight favorite, you're in the same spot. The key to consistenly winning tournaments isn't to put yourself in situations where you can get lucky. It's to play well.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
