How to minimize standard deviation?

[Ludanto]

I have the feeling that the difference in EV is not HUGE for most players if they have to choose between a TAG and a LAG style. Because of this it looks like a good ideo (in my imagination at least [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) to minimize the standard deviation so I need a lower bankroll for the current limit and can jump up limits faster. ...is this idea totally flawed?

Anyways, what would you do to have your standard deviation as low as possible?

I guess I would play as tight as possible. But I don't know what I would do postflop. Agressive still looks good. I think because of the directness it might be a little less EV to play aggressive as opposed to decieving play BUT it would also result in less variance.

Please share your thoughts.

[RustyBrooks]

In "Sklansky on Poker", he addresses this. He actually says it's OK to occaisonally play above your bankroll, with a lower stdev style, if you can accept the slightly lower win rate. It's often more profitable to take less bb/hour at 10/20 than to play in 5/10 with normal rate.

The key to lowering your standard deviation is pretty simple: make fewer marginal calls, and make fewer raises when you are even with an opponent. Fold more often when you are getting 3:1 pot odds to make a hand that comes in 3:1. Raise less often when you are pretty sure you have neutral equity against an opponent (but by no means fold). When in doubt, fold.

Obviously you take a reduction in EV because you will lose the pot on hands where you are being bluffed, and there will be times you think you have 50% equity HU where you actually had much more. For players who are too aggressive, though, backing off will sometimes increase win rate.

[RustyBrooks]

Also note that standard deviation has a direct and very important impact on bankroll requirements. The 300bb recommendation (for limit games) is based on the assumption that you can make 2bb/100 at 15bb/100 standard deviation. If either of those is not true, adjustments must be made.

[_D&L_]

Ways to lower standard deviation
- Don't win any big hands.
- Don't lose any big hands.
- A corrolary: Don't make the pot big by betting.
- U normally fold, and get zero - so more folding is good, especially before the pot gets big.


I think you can see focusing on lowering your s.d. is one sure fire way to be a losing player.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you can see focusing on lowering your s.d. is one sure fire way to be a losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your goal were to play and have a low s.d. only play and lose SnGs. Your s.d. would be zero.

[RustyBrooks]

Please. There are ways to lower your SD and have an acceptable hit to your win rate.

[br.bm]

SD is influenced by:
- your EV
- the potsize
- your chance to win

the first two points are more important than the last one. I don't like a low SD style for cashgames though. Because SD isn't important in the long run. Simply play as much +EV as you can and don't play if you can't handle losses.

[RustyBrooks]

That's good advice, but consider this:
If I can make 2bb/100 in a 5/10 game, playing my normal style, or 1.5bb/100 in a 10/20 game playing a lower-ev style (assume I could also make 2bb/100 playing my normal style, but the SD makes my ROR too high) then I am better off playing 10/20 with lower EV (in bb/100)... $30/hour instead of $20/hour. In fact, as long as I can make 1bb/100 or better in 10/20, it's better for me to do that.

[Mook]

[ QUOTE ]
SD is influenced by:
- your EV
- the potsize
- your chance to win

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the single biggest influence on variance (and thus your SD) is game selection.

Assuming two games where your relative skill and EV is otherwise identical, the loose and aggressive game will produce a MUCH higher SD than a tight, passive game with the same limits.

Your conclusion is right though - in cash games, the changes that you typically need to make to "control" variance wind up costing you so much EV in the long run that it's not worth it. Play as +EV as you can and focus instead on game selection and, most importantly, bankroll.

Mook

[RustyBrooks]

Check out the "Playing According to Your Bankroll" section in "Sklansky on Poker" (page 21 in my edition). The second page in this section describes why you can play a higher stakes game than your bankroll allows, if you play a lower SD/lower BB/100 game.

The last page of chapter 2 in "The Theory of Poker" also mentions this - playing a less than optimal game if you are short, in the interest of winning over the interest of maximizing return.

Just so you know I'm not pulling this idea out of my ass...