Tournament play a coin flip?

[Checkov]

I've been a nlhe player for years. But of late I have been enjoying tourny play. The bad wrap I hear is mostly that tourny play wins require coin flips and cash play is won on skill.

If tourny play is profitable for you, tell me what's your variance?

What's your opinion?

[1st and 15]

*sigh* Theres no skill involved in donkaments. Isn't this common knowledge by now...

FWIW - my variance tends to vary over time

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
If tourny play is profitable for you, tell me what's your variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, its been a while since i took stats class, and i'm not sure that comparing ring game variance to tournament variance would even be comparing apples to apples, (and to be honest i don't even remember how to figure variance) but i'll tell you this:

if i had a $100 to my name, that i needed to turn into $1000 in 10 days to save my life, and i could either play $10 SNGs and higher, or .25/.50NL and higher, i would get to work on $10 SNGs no doubt (and move up levels as my BR grew). and i would be pretty confident in my chances of success.

i find the "effective" variance, (defined as what i percieve as upswings and downswings) to be very low in SNGs. i also feel like its pretty low in MTTs - although i am pretty sure that by true mathematical definition it's pretty high in MTTs.

Put it this way- if you are very good, you will very rarely lose over a span of 20 SNGs of equal buy-in amount. i would guess less than 3% of the time. in MTTs it depends on how many entrants etc, but it doesn't ever feel like high variance, because you're losing a little when you lose, and gaining a bunch when you win.

I would also argue that it is easier to be an excellent tournament player than it is to be an excellent ring game player.

[Checkov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If tourny play is profitable for you, tell me what's your variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, its been a while since i took stats class, and i'm not sure that comparing ring game variance to tournament variance would even be comparing apples to apples, (and to be honest i don't even remember how to figure variance) but i'll tell you this:

if i had a $100 to my name, that i needed to turn into $1000 in 10 days to save my life, and i could either play $10 SNGs and higher, or .25/.50NL and higher, i would get to work on $10 SNGs no doubt (and move up levels as my BR grew). and i would be pretty confident in my chances of success.

i find the "effective" variance, (defined as what i percieve as upswings and downswings) to be very low in SNGs. i also feel like its pretty low in MTTs - although i am pretty sure that by true mathematical definition it's pretty high in MTTs.

Put it this way- if you are very good, you will very rarely lose over a span of 20 SNGs of equal buy-in amount. i would guess less than 3% of the time. in MTTs it depends on how many entrants etc, but it doesn't ever feel like high variance, because you're losing a little when you lose, and gaining a bunch when you win.

I would also argue that it is easier to be an excellent tournament player than it is to be an excellent ring game player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice answer, that really helps. I'm on it!

[TyFuji]

Playing in a $50 tournament is higher variance than buying in at 50NL, because the possible outcomes are so disparate: you will win a lot a small amount of the time and lose a little a lot of the time. In other words, MTTs have higher % variance.

In this case, the investment is the same. However, proper bankroll management means that no matter what, your $ variance is going to be around equal no matter what you're playing. Since MTTs are more % variant, you need to keep more buyins in your roll to make your $ variance equal to what it would be if you were playing cash or sngs or whatever. Obviously in willie24's example, you would be better off playing the $10 sngs than playing 50NL, but I would say your $ swings in $10 sngs are around the same as they would be in 25nl, meaning that these two options are about the same variance wise.

hope this helps

ty