Variance

[Smurph64]

if your variance is 20bb/100 at micro and 12bb/100 at 50/100 then your variance is by definition lower at the higher limits.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Each person's variance is different not according to the level they are playing at but as to how they play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the two variables are confounded. At more aggressive games, your variance will go up relative to a passive game when you consider the number of bets you'll be forced to call that you wouldn't be forced to call in a passive game.

[MrWookie]

The most important factor when it comes to variance is not actually the variance, but the ratio of win rate to variance. Typically, the standard deviation (square root of variance) per hundred hands is in the 15-20 BB range. If your win rate was in that same ballpark, you'd almost never have an appreicable downswing, just stretches where you didn't win quite as much. OTOH, if your win rate is 0.1 BB/100, you'll be constantly up and down. The climb in your graph will be small compared to the random ups and downs. This is the variance that people feel, and what makes poker tough on people. It's only natural to get more upset about losing than you would about not winning as much.

From this, it follows that even if the absolute variance is higher at the nanostakes games, the size of your downswings is going to be much smaller compared to high stakes games where, even if the variance is slightly lower, your win rate will be significantly reduced. In the high stakes games, then, you're going to have much bigger downs compared to your ups.

[bellatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends how you define variance. Do you define it in BigBets/100? Then, yes it tends to go down at higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... I thought it actually goes up at the higher limits because the players are more aggressive so that you're forced to put more bets in on average than at the lower levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I look at the 6max stats (just this moment on FT) of .5/1 and 5/10, I'm seeing virtually no difference in average pot size in terms of BB/hr. They are around 3.5-6BB. At this very moment .5/1 wins with an average of 4.8BB vs. 4.4BB 5/10.
You would tend to have the same VPIP probably, so there shouldn't be much difference, except that at higher limits you can narrow your opponents range much more. Hands will not go to the river that often. That slim edge you have with value betting on the river -> it increases your variance. Correctly raising draws in large fields (even if passive) -> increases your variance. If you have a very good hand in a capped pot with 4 players or a 6-handed with you as raiser, I tend to think that the 6-handed has more variance even though PF there are 12SB in the pot.

And again, these changes may be miniscule in regards to the winrate/100. I overdramatized it in my example of 20BB/100 and 12BB/100. Perhaps it only changes 16BB/100 - 14BB/100... I could live with that. If you don't change your style, variance will go down. Now, do you want to keep your tight 15/8/2 style at the highest levels... that's another question... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Xylocain]

I think there is some confusion here. Variance on these boards is often discussed as deviation from break even when it is in fact deviation from the expected value.

The higher standard deviation found higher games stems (I assume), from putting in more bets (more agression) with smaller edges(tougher games).

The thing is that a 0.5 BB/100 winner will have gigantinormous swings from break even... but a 4 BB/100 will have tiny negative swings... however if they have the same standard deviation, they will have the same swings from their expected value.

Hope I got it right, chemists arent known to be smart.

[bellatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
The most important factor when it comes to variance is not actually the variance, but the ratio of win rate to variance. Typically, the standard deviation (square root of variance) per hundred hands is in the 15-20 BB range. If your win rate was in that same ballpark, you'd almost never have an appreicable downswing, just stretches where you didn't win quite as much. OTOH, if your win rate is 0.1 BB/100, you'll be constantly up and down. The climb in your graph will be small compared to the random ups and downs. This is the variance that people feel, and what makes poker tough on people. It's only natural to get more upset about losing than you would about not winning as much.

From this, it follows that even if the absolute variance is higher at the nanostakes games, the size of your downswings is going to be much smaller compared to high stakes games where, even if the variance is slightly lower, your win rate will be significantly reduced. In the high stakes games, then, you're going to have much bigger downs compared to your ups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Wookie! I hate you! Why do you have to explain so elonquentely what I was trying to say like 5 posts ago... ? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]