Am I too demanding regarding my results?

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]

Correct me if my logic is wrong, but supppose you are playing 2/4 limit with a 400BB roll of $1600. From what I've heard 200-300BB downswings can be common in limit. So say you take a 200BB downswing; thats -$800.

Now lets say you are playing $50NL with the same $1600 roll. Playing small stakes NL like this, it is possible to experience a 6-8 buy-in downswing. Now even if a player hit an 8 buy-in downswing (which shouldn't happen often assuming you are a winning player) in $50NL they would be down -$400, only half of what a 200BB downswing is in the limit game this player would be rolled for.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are underestimating the variance of NL pretty badly in my opinion. The 300 BB "standard" for limit is equivalent to the 20 buy-in rule in NL from what I know. I actually do believe NL has a lower variance *for a strong player*, but I think it is far from "much less". Beginners at a NL table are exactly what lowers the variance for the strong players.

[Vince.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Correct me if my logic is wrong, but supppose you are playing 2/4 limit with a 400BB roll of $1600. From what I've heard 200-300BB downswings can be common in limit. So say you take a 200BB downswing; thats -$800.

Now lets say you are playing $50NL with the same $1600 roll. Playing small stakes NL like this, it is possible to experience a 6-8 buy-in downswing. Now even if a player hit an 8 buy-in downswing (which shouldn't happen often assuming you are a winning player) in $50NL they would be down -$400, only half of what a 200BB downswing is in the limit game this player would be rolled for.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are underestimating the variance of NL pretty badly in my opinion. The 300 BB "standard" for limit is equivalent to the 20 buy-in rule in NL from what I know. I actually do believe NL has a lower variance *for a strong player*, but I think it is far from "much less". Beginners at a NL table are exactly what lowers the variance for the strong players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, when I said "much" less I guess I was being too vauge. Limit is probably a better way to learn the game for total beginners. I'm just going from my own experience. When I started out I tried both limit and no-limit and enjoyed playing NL more. But yes, the biggest advantage of NL is the ability to take advantage and exploit the weaker players to a greater degree than limit. And at low stakes NL, any decent player should be able to make a profit by just playing solid ABC poker.

[Buzz-cp]

yes you are. Read these forums and you will see. Start with the micro FAQ.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems so unjust. I know about variance, I know that in theory those idiots will give me their money in the end but I'm starting to have doubts. It doesn't matter how well I play, someone always draws out on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you know intellectually about variance, but you're still bothered by the cosmic injustice of it all. Also as some others have said, you're more bothered by the fact that your winrate isn't as outrageously high as it was for one period, not that it's turned negative for a long period. I agree with this response:

[ QUOTE ]

If poker upsets you too much, you might want to quit. Find another hobby. However, you might want to use poker as an exercise for controlling unproductive and irrational emotions. Are you angry at the fish? Without the fish, you would have no edge. The fish didn't cause you to lose. Your bad luck caused you to lose after the fish gave you a profitable gamble.


[/ QUOTE ]

And another post that I'm too lazy to find because I have to go catch a bus....