|
|
#11
03-13-2006, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
I've been stuck on the misnomer that limit was a 'safer' game because you couldn't lose your whole stack. A very small part of me feels that way and as I play more and more NL in the small stakes I realize that just isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I used to think this way for quite a while also. But the (extremely counterintuitive) truth is, the variance experienced at comparable games will be a lot less at NL. Basically your big losses will remain the same but your big wins will be much bigger at NL. This is because Limit is mostly played according to pot odds whereas NL is played according to pot odds AND implied odds. 
|
|
#12
03-13-2006, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
Variance would definitely be higher due to the potential size of the bets? Makes perfect sense, bets are lower when you are thinking immediate odds as opposed to what's going to happen in the future. Trying to work it out in my own head...
|
|
#13
03-13-2006, 03:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've been stuck on the misnomer that limit was a 'safer' game because you couldn't lose your whole stack. A very small part of me feels that way and as I play more and more NL in the small stakes I realize that just isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I used to think this way for quite a while also. But the (extremely counterintuitive) truth is, the variance experienced at comparable games will be a lot less at NL. Basically your big losses will remain the same but your big wins will be much bigger at NL. This is because Limit is mostly played according to pot odds whereas NL is played according to pot odds AND implied odds. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe my understanding of variance is wrong, but if your losses are comparable but your upswings are larger, that implies higher, not lower, variance. No?
|
|
#14
03-13-2006, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've been stuck on the misnomer that limit was a 'safer' game because you couldn't lose your whole stack. A very small part of me feels that way and as I play more and more NL in the small stakes I realize that just isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I used to think this way for quite a while also. But the (extremely counterintuitive) truth is, the variance experienced at comparable games will be a lot less at NL. Basically your big losses will remain the same but your big wins will be much bigger at NL. This is because Limit is mostly played according to pot odds whereas NL is played according to pot odds AND implied odds. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe my understanding of variance is wrong, but if your losses are comparable but your upswings are larger, that implies higher, not lower, variance. No? [/ QUOTE ] I think in the context of what these people are debating the important fact is the win rate : variance ratio, which is much higher in NL and will lead to fewer losing sessions.
|
|
#15
03-13-2006, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've been stuck on the misnomer that limit was a 'safer' game because you couldn't lose your whole stack. A very small part of me feels that way and as I play more and more NL in the small stakes I realize that just isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I used to think this way for quite a while also. But the (extremely counterintuitive) truth is, the variance experienced at comparable games will be a lot less at NL. Basically your big losses will remain the same but your big wins will be much bigger at NL. This is because Limit is mostly played according to pot odds whereas NL is played according to pot odds AND implied odds. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe my understanding of variance is wrong, but if your losses are comparable but your upswings are larger, that implies higher, not lower, variance. No? [/ QUOTE ] I think in the context of what these people are debating the important fact is the win rate : variance ratio, which is much higher in NL and will lead to fewer losing sessions. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I know. But I just wanted to hear a fun explanation.
|
|
#17
03-13-2006, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
Sounds like you were at my buddies table. He is shall we say "Manical". He likes to push and isn't afraid to throw around the chips.
Funny thing is he managed to walk away up albeit about 22 bucks after being stuck for 500. I played on another table playing much more conservatively and had a stack that ranged from 100-220 most of the day until the end when I decided to become a donator to a set of Q's. At any rate our set of dealer were very good. My table was in the 50's near the 2/5, 5/5 NL games and the 30/60 OE game they had running. Our first dealer was the only question mark. He literally feel asleep while dealing. Managed to deal stud for one hand and started a shuffle without dealing a river. Floor came by and had him take one of the burn cards for the river. Had a fun table and most people were very personable and talkative. The 5/5 table next too us had a large following of nits. I think the floor spent more time there than all the other tables combined. BTW I hate the 7.00 or 12.00 raises. Never mind the guy that loved to raise to 5.00 or the kid raising to 13.00??? 10 or 15 was pretty much the std. though.
|
|
#19
03-14-2006, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Foxwoods Trip Report (Long)
No a big guy with beard. We started at 10:30 and this was his second time at the table so I guess maybe 12:00??
Strange name Nabil?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
