Variance is good in tournament poker

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic ideas presented here are very important for MTTers to remember

I am successful because my style courts variance; people think I just run good all the time, but the truth is I get much more mileage out of the times I run good than most people do

[/ QUOTE ] Besides "it's good to be LAG," what ideas are being presented here?

Man, I hate fuzzy thinking.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic ideas presented here are very important for MTTers to remember

I am successful because my style courts variance; people think I just run good all the time, but the truth is I get much more mileage out of the times I run good than most people do

[/ QUOTE ] Besides "it's good to be LAG," what ideas are being presented here?

Man, I hate fuzzy thinking.

[/ QUOTE ] The only real, specific idea here is: "it's okay to take the worst of it in a coinflip at the beginning of the tournament, as long as you're not too much of a dog."

Oh, and "It's okay to rebuy a lot in rebuy tournaments."

[nath]

the ideas are "be very aggressive" and "take the higher-variance play when it is offered*"
(exceptions are when you are substantially ahead of the field and the higher-variance play is for a lot of your chips)

[uclabruinz]

I am definitely not going to get into the early coinflip debate again, but it is worth me at least saying that I believe taking early flips is generally bad, but taking flips at certain other points in the tournament is generally good.

The rest of this thread seems like fuzzy gobblygook to me, a vague excuse to say playing LAG is awesome. You win tournaments by playing well and getting help, regardless of style.

Just thought I would make clear that not every 2p2er agrees with the fuzzy line of thinking in this thread.

[JohnFR]

All right let's discuss some statistics for a minute. Everybody should remember mean and Standard Deviation, if I have a mean of 100 and a SD of 5 then most of my values will be a couple of standard deviations above and below my mean, IE. most valeus between 85-115. On the other hand, if I have a mean of 100, and a SD of 25, most of the numbers will be in the range of 25-175.
The OP used the words average which is very similar to the mean in most cases, and variance which is a function of standard deviation.
What the OP described then is a tight player with a decent average, with low variance meaning that he finishes around that same spot consistently, a little past it, and a little before it more often than not THIS IS WHAT LOW VARIANCE IS. Then for the high variance player to have high variance and still maintain a good average, that means he is hitting lots of top finishes to go along with his early bustouts(FOR HIS AVERAGE TO STAY THE SAME AS THE TIGHT PLAYER'S AVERAGE).

This is COMMON SENSE if you understand statistics at all, if 2 averages are the same, but one is lower variance than the other, the higher variance will have more swings, both above and below.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
What the OP described then is a tight player with a decent average, with low variance meaning that he finishes around that same spot consistently, a little past it, and a little before it more often than not THIS IS WHAT LOW VARIANCE IS.

This is COMMON SENSE if you understand statistics at all

[/ QUOTE ] The assumption you and the OP are making, which is not logical at all, is that TIGHT (meaning that you fold most hands) equals LOW VARIANCE (meaning that you tend to finish around the same spot). Why does one necessarily equal the other?

[madmisha]

Playing a hand inherently has more variance than folding.
The result of folding is very uniform and predictable. Playing a hand has a wide range of possibilities from doubling up to busting. The more hands one plays, the higher the variance.

Looking at an extreme example: Players that don't show up. Typically these players will finish around the 1/3 mark in the field. Their mean will be above average with a very low variance and their earnings will be typically zero.

Other examples of variance being good in tourney poker.

When short stacked good players push a wider range of hands hoping to take the blinds or double up. They also do this at a higher M than poor players. The earlier and more often players push, the higher variance. However this increases the chance of higher, more profitable finishes than taking the lower variance conservative route.

Another example is on the bubble. Weak players try to fold their way into the money. Good players steal frequently to take advantage of this, though this increases the chances of busting out and therefore their variance.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing a hand inherently has more variance than folding.
The result of folding is very uniform and predictable. Playing a hand has a wide range of possibilities from doubling up to busting. The more hands one plays, the higher the variance.

Looking at an extreme example: Players that don't show up. Typically these players will finish around the 1/3 mark in the field. Their mean will be above average with a very low variance and their earnings will be typically zero.

Other examples of variance being good in tourney poker.

When short stacked good players push a wider range of hands hoping to take the blinds or double up. They also do this at a higher M than poor players. The earlier and more often players push, the higher variance. However this increases the chance of higher, more profitable finishes than taking the lower variance conservative route.

Another example is on the bubble. Weak players try to fold their way into the money. Good players steal frequently to take advantage of this, though this increases the chances of busting out and therefore their variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so your advice is:

1. Play more hands.
2. Don't try to fold into the money.
3. Push at a higher M than most players.
4. Play aggressively on the bubble.

TAGs and LAGs do 2, 3, and 4. The difference is 1. LAGs play more hands than TAGs. So, to boil it all down, your theory is:

PLAY MORE HANDS

or

LAG IS GOOD

[uclabruinz]

Well, the question is whether busting out of more tourneys but also making it to 2/3/4 more often with a bigger stack (LAG) equates to winning the tournament more often then busting out less often but also more often making it to 2/3/4 with a smaller stack (TAG).

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the difference is far, far less then many people opine, particularly in this thread (assuming we are talking about a very good LAG and a very good TAG player).

[Quanah Parker]

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.