MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Enon]

Doughnutz pwns me hard. Very tough player.

[Abbaddabba]

just want to comment on one post,

[ QUOTE ]
Different styles of play definitely have different concomitant variance. To conclude otherwise is to fly in the face of both the facts and common sense. Someone who plays 40% of his hands in a 6-max game is going to have more variance than someone who plays 25% of his hands since the variance from folding a hand is zero. By the same token, someone who puts more bets in on average after the flop is going to have more variance than someone who tends to play fit-or-fold (though sometimes players who play passively can have fairly high variance since they tend to put a lot of bets in, just not all at once).


[/ QUOTE ]


your opponents aggression is a much larger determinent of your stdv/100 than how you personally play, in my opinion.
in my experience playing between lowly 1/2 limit and 30/60, i play no more aggressively now (in fact i likely play more passive) - and yet my standard deviation has jumped considerably.

[DpR]

First, I am not suggesting that I believe the following to be true, nor that I have experience to suggest it is true (I have zero hands at 2/4).

But, what about the possibility that the winning "crazy" players are in fact colluding in a way that makes their win rate exceptional and they are able to makes these otherwise laggy plays in order to cover and bring their win rate into a "normal" range.

Again, I am NOT suggesting I have any evidence of this as it would relate to Hock. However, it was definitly a suspicion of mine as related to the old "DERB". It would actually be surprising to find there was no such actin in the 2/4 stars game, but only those who have played in it can speak to that.

[the_casino_kid]

YOUR ONLY BEATING THE GAME FOR 0.4 BIG BETS OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE CRAZY SWINGS!!!! IT'S THE BASIC LAWS OF PROBABILITY THEORY...IF YOU WERE BEATING THE GAME FOR 2BB/100 THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE SUCH CRAZY VARIANCE..