Variance is good in tournament poker

[uclabruinz]

Quanah, definitely.

[Moose747]

Consider a game where you're continually given opportunities to double up at probabilities between 35% and 65%. You always know what the probability is. If you decline an opportunity, you lose a percentage of your stake, with that percentage initially being small, but rising over time. The goal is to acquire as many chips as possible.

How do you play this game? Well, tactfully. You don't want to take a 40% chance to double up, because you know there's likely to be a 60% chance around the corner. But at the same time you can't wait too long, since eventually you'll get blinded out. The key isn't to always take chances (high variance) or to never take chances (low variance), it's to play well.

I think it's reasonable to say that all things being equal variance is good. It's better to have a 20% chance to final table and a 40% to bust early than to have a 5% chance to final table and a 2% chance to bust early. But a good TAG player who is likely to final table and relatively unlikely to bust early isn't a bad player simply because they have relatively low variance. They wait for spots, maximize their chances to double up and play to win. That's good poker, regardless of variance.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's reasonable to say that all things being equal variance is good. It's better to have a 20% chance to final table and a 40% to bust early than to have a 5% chance to final table and a 2% chance to bust early.

[/ QUOTE ] But why do you think that the first scenario (20%FT,40%bust] is more likely to occur with a LAG than a TAG? Where is your proof of that? Perhaps a LAG has a 40% bust/5% FT, and a TAG has a 20% bust/6% FT. Who knows? Do you?

[Moose747]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it's reasonable to say that all things being equal variance is good. It's better to have a 20% chance to final table and a 40% to bust early than to have a 5% chance to final table and a 2% chance to bust early.

[/ QUOTE ] But why do you think that the first scenario (20%FT,40%bust] is more likely to occur with a LAG than a TAG? Where is your proof of that? Perhaps a LAG has a 40% bust/5% FT, and a TAG has a 20% bust/6% FT. Who knows? Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I assume that all else is equal, it is true that higher variance leads to more top finishes and more bottom finishes. That's the definition of variance. But I think the assumption that all else is equal is a totally useless assumption, since all else is not equal. Some players are good, some are bad, and the decision to play LAG or TAG affects not only variance but also whether you're playing well/correctly. So basically, I think this whole discussion is pretty meaningless, though interesting on a theoretical level.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this just another cat skinning exercise?

Don't I want to observe how my opponents are playing, and then manipulate them into helping me win?

Seems to me like I want to be able to go TAG or LAG depending of how I think my opponenets are playing.

Both styles can be profitable when played well, and if I can play both styles appropriately, then I'll be even more successful than folks who only play one style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone else in this thread just got pwned.

Discussion over.

[Nez477]

Wow, Quanah, you are no longer ignored, thank you.

Brad

[madmisha]

I think I have done a disservice to my main point, by using terms like TAG and LAG,

Variance is obviously not the only factor in tourneys. Making Chip EV+ plays should be the fundamental part of one's play. This is true in ring poker and in tourneys.

However in tourney increase variance can also be a factor, while in ring play variance is a neutral concept.

The importance of variance in tourneys depends on several factors. These include payout, structure and stack size relative to the blinds.

In flat payout structures such as satelites, there are times to minimize variance. Ex: 100 left, you have average stack and 90 people get a spot. Here proper strategy is to minimize variance. This can get to the extreme circumstance where it can be correct to fold Aces. However in a tourney where only first is paid, one should instead maximize variance as possible.

With regards to structure the deeper and slower the structure, the more your play should resemble ring play such as early in a deep stack tourney. However, in a turbo structure and later in tourneys as stacks become shallow, higher variance plays will result in better earnings.

I think recognizing this concept and how to apply it is important. Where being a TAG and LAG fit in with optimal play is obviously debatable, and not my main point.

I think the crux of the argument is not that higher variance is better than lower variance with the same EV, but that higher variance play will often result in higher EV.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have done a disservice to my main point, by using terms like TAG and LAG,

Variance is obviously not the only factor in tourneys. Making Chip EV+ plays should be the fundamental part of one's play. This is true in ring poker and in tourneys.

However in tourney increase variance can also be a factor, while in ring play variance is a neutral concept.

The importance of variance in tourneys depends on several factors. These include payout, structure and stack size relative to the blinds.

In flat payout structures such as satelites, there are times to minimize variance. Ex: 100 left, you have average stack and 90 people get a spot. Here proper strategy is to minimize variance. This can get to the extreme circumstance where it can be correct to fold Aces. However in a tourney where only first is paid, one should instead maximize variance as possible.

With regards to structure the deeper and slower the structure, the more your play should resemble ring play such as early in a deep stack tourney. However, in a turbo structure and later in tourneys as stacks become shallow, higher variance plays will result in better earnings.

I think recognizing this concept and how to apply it is important. Where being a TAG and LAG fit in with optimal play is obviously debatable, and not my main point.

[/ QUOTE ] Quanah, your first shot killed me, but it only winged him.