|
|
#11
08-16-2006, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
higher variance = more first and last place finished [/ QUOTE ] So, in other words, it's better to finish in 1st place and 40th place, then 2nd place and 39th place? Hmm, that's helpful. Glad someone pointed that out. 
|
|
#12
08-16-2006, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] What does "willing to take more gambles" mean? Does that mean you are more willing to get all your chips in the middle with the worst of it? For instance, does that mean I am willing to get into a coin flip to double my stack when I only have a 45% chance to win, where a TAG player actually requires to have the correct pot odds before he will call?
|
|
#13
08-16-2006, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody wins tournaments CONSISTENTLY. Playing well is a big part of it, but the variance is so high that even the best players get knocked out... CONSISTENTLY. The difference between playing somewhat loose early on and taking chances to build a stack and losing - and bubbling out or barely ITMing 3hours later is the TIME you spend to find out that you're not getting a huge pile of money. Time IS money, it has a value, it has an HOURLY RATE. When I play rebuy as a maniac (well, SEMI-maniac) - at the add-on time I usually have either the starting stack (that I just re-bought) - or I'm in or near top-10 stacks. It's rare for me to have a middling stack at that point. With the big stack I usually go pretty deep, with the small stack - I'm looking to gamble for all my chips in the next orbit or two. Possibly more than once. It's all about embracing the variance.
|
|
#14
08-16-2006, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] What does "willing to take more gambles" mean? Does that mean you are more willing to get all your chips in the middle with the worst of it? For instance, does that mean I am willing to get into a coin flip to double my stack when I only have a 45% chance to win, where a TAG player actually requires to have the correct pot odds before he will call? [/ QUOTE ] I'm gambling with 45% chance because aside from first 3-4 levels the blinds will make the pot odds correct (or almost correct) to gamble for your stack.
|
|
#17
08-16-2006, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
Can someone summarize what the maniac rebuy strategy is? I play in the lower rebuys ($3-$10 on Stars) and some people just move in every hand until 1st hour is done. I usually play tight waiting to pick off. Are we talking typical LAG play (which is impossible when all the hands are being played preflop) or push all-in poker? Seems nonsensical to me, I hate throwing 20 rebuys into a tournament.
|
|
#18
08-16-2006, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
[ QUOTE ]
I'm gambling with 45% chance because aside from first 3-4 levels the blinds will make the pot odds correct (or almost correct) to gamble for your stack. [/ QUOTE ] If you have the correct pot odds, that's just good poker, independent of LAG or TAG or whatever. If you are passing up situations where you have the pot odds to call, then of course you are not going to do well. I think the word "variance" is being used here in a kind of nebulous, vague way. The reasoning is circular: 1. It's good to be LAG. 2. LAG = high variance 3. Therefore, it's good to have high variance. OR 1. It's good to finish in first. 2. Finishing in first = high variance 3. Therefore, it's good to have high variance.
|
|
#20
08-16-2006, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Variance is good in tournament poker
A LAG could have high variance based on his chip stack at any one time (his chip stack fluctuates greatly), and low variance based on his tournament winnings (he always loses). A TAG could have low variance based on his chip stack at any time (his chip stack tends to increase or decrease slower than a LAG's chip stack), and high variance based on his tournament winnings (he usually loses, but makes the FT more than most players).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
