MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
"That is impressive, because I'm pretty sure I played with you at the Commerce a few months ago and remember thinking you have a very high variance style.
"

the concept of one style being more high variance than another strikes me as totally bogus. the fact is, your edge in a game determines how much variance you incur. if schneids is doing things like bloating pots but plays that game at a true winrate of 2bb/100, he'll have much less variance than a more conservative and passive player whose true winrate is 1.5bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
schneids, didn't you have a downswing that was over 500bb when you first moved up to 15/30?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was that I lost 500BBs in that game, while at the same time won about 200BBs in 10/20 6m, so total downswing over that time period was 300ish BBs.

So yeah, if you want to look at just one limit over a time period, I lost 500.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
schneids, didn't you have a downswing that was over 500bb when you first moved up to 15/30?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was that I lost 500BBs in that game, while at the same time won about 200BBs in 10/20 6m, so total downswing over that time period was 300ish BBs.

So yeah, if you want to look at just one limit over a time period, I lost 500.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also that was like 4 years ago. I wasn't the same player that I am now.

[baronzeus]

Hock,

I remember seeing you winning a lot in the big database posted by some guy in MHUSH. I came in thinking you were really good, but I muts have started playing with you just as your downswing started. There are some things i think you do really well, and some things I think you definitely need to work on. I won't go into any details because I think you know already.

At the same time I'm not sure how big of a winner you are. My best guess would have to be about .5BB/100, and based on my limited experience I'd have trouble believing you can win 1BB/100 or more over an extended period.

[joker122]

"But he might not notice it as much in terms of prolonged downswings, etc"

this is what i meant by "variance."

[daryn]

hock,

foxyplayer, everyone knows that duh [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

few things:

i was serious when i said maybe i'm just totally missing something. i'm not just trying to baselessly bash everyone. i'm curious though, does anyone have datamined stats on me? how am i doing?? haha i have no idea.

another thing, you don't have to be some huge winner to say a guy sucks. i'm not saying doughnutz is this huge fish but i'd be curious as to what his "true" winrate is. often when he first showed up on the scene i would just chase him from table to table, i perceived him to be THAT bad. i still don't mind playing with him, it seems like he gives excessive action with the worst of it far too often.

[Mig]

I don't remember playing Foxy while I played on stars, but I certainly didn't mind playing Hock. I perceived him as Daryn explained it...

[Lestat]

That's not true joker. One reason (among others), why Schneids might earn more than I do in a game, is that he pushes some small edges that I won't push. So yes, his earn is higher, but his swings figure to be more severe. Of course, he can make up for that by doing other things better than I do, such as hand reading, etc.

A guy who is pretty much considered by everyone I've ever talked to as one of the top limit hold'em players around, dropped over 100bb's in a live 400-800 session. Now that's something that would be (almost) impossible for me to do.

I understand what you're saying (that a higher win rate reduces variance), but that's when all else is the same. When you push miniscule edges that someone else doesn't push, you're going to be wrong sometimes. And when running bad, you're going to often lose even when you're not wrong. This means swinging more even with a higher earn than a more conservative player. In fact...

I know players who happily accept a smaller earn for reduced variance. They'll play in smaller games even though they could probably make a little more if they played higher. The extra profit isn't worth the added variance due to the more aggressive games (and reduced edge).

[CheckRaise]

I'm sure most of you guys have seen this but to all the guys that don't think hock can win 1BB/100, does this change your mind? Can his results here really be attributed to variance, just curious?

[daryn]

i see at least 7 BIG TIME fish on that list, no joke. variance is for real!! why is it so surprising? and think about this, if there are indeed 7 huge fish on that list, doesn't that mean there could easily be 7 very solid players on the losers list?