A Discussion of Variance

[mosuavea]

In the moving from limit to NL post Pokey posted:

[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, limit has much more volatility than no-limit. I'll say that again, since it sounds so stupid: limit has much more volatility than no-limit. Look at the BB/100 graphs of a selection of limit players, then look at the BB/100 graphs of a selection of no-limit players and you'll quickly realize that the limit players have FAR longer stretches of break-even or losing play, even among good players. There was a well-respected limit player who was OBVIOUSLY good at the game but who had a break-even stretch that lasted 20,000 hands. A decent, winning no-limit player would NEVER have a similar situation occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little backgorund: After playing 75K hands of limit, I decided to switch to NL and had great success. I made the switch in roughly May of last year and have played 140K hands of NL in that time ranging from 25-200 at various sites, mostly at Party and skins.

It is definitely true there is less volatility in NL when compared to limit but saying that a winning player cannot go through a 20K+ range of hands where he/she breaks even /loses I believe is very wrong. I post this image for discussion:

[vulturesrow]

Yeah I thought it was a great post by Pokey, but I think saying a decent NL player should never have a stretch like that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

[dardo]

well, this graph clearly shows an even period of 57K hands.
From 84K to 141K hands, having the resutls stabilized at 4100 BBs.

also, drops of 2K hands, along the growing.

I would put this questions althought ...

- It would be important to know at which hands there was a change of level (from 25Nl to 50NL, for example). Maybe the breakeven last stage was caused by changing to a level ithout enough skill.

- It can be tricky to mix graphs from different levels. As I've seen at Sit&Go's as harder the level the % of benefits get lower (in this case BBs won), but the amount of money involved ( size of the BB ) make it profitable.

Have to go. Maybe there was something left.

regards,

dardo

[mosuavea]

[ QUOTE ]

- It would be important to know at which hands there was a change of level (from 25Nl to 50NL, for example). Maybe the breakeven last stage was caused by changing to a level ithout enough skill.


[/ QUOTE ]

The breakeven stretch is literally all levels from 25-200, where most play was at the 50-100 level.

Leading up the breakeven point was at the 100-200 levels for approximately 30K hands.

I hadn't played at the 25s aside form a 2+2 table here and htere since the 0-50K hands mark.

[thedustbustr]

a 20k break even stretch is cause to reexamine your game, let alone a 50k stretch. variance sucks, but it doesn't suck that much.

did you move up in limits near 90k hands? have you considered the pissibility that you are getting outplayed? (I'm not trying to insult you)

[thedustbustr]

Try seperating your graphs by level and seeing if the break even stretch exists in all levels, or if it's a downswing only at NL100+ (=tilt, or moving up too fast).

[mosuavea]

The move was much prior to 90K as stated in a previous post.

The game has been examined and rexamined. I have regualr talks with a prominent poster here and exchange hand histories and discuss hands dating back late November when I was running good. This swing started near Christmas and has no bearing on when I moved up.

Not insulted at all as I figured to get hammered when posting this because I think a lot of this forum doesnt think that a decent SSNL player can go through a breakeven stretch like a limit player can. I think this statement is false and I threw myself to the wolves to proof/disprove it.

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I thought it was a great post by Pokey, but I think saying a decent NL player should never have a stretch like that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll elaborate a little bit more. At lower limits, NLHE isn't about pushing small edges - it's about pushing huge edges. Pushing huge edges is low[er] variance. a 50k breakeven stretch at limit is very normal, because you're pushing small edges. At high limits where the skill level increases significantly - we're talking 400+: i play 200 and the skill level is just as terrible - a pro will have breakeven stretches. Not at small limits.

Or maybe you're right, and you're having your once in a lifetime [censored] run early in your career.

also, try posting in BBV (and reading it) - they are a bunch of jokers but you will actually get fairly accurate responses to stuff like this.

[dardo]

I don't udnerstand well. Do you mean ... ?

0 - 50K - mostly 25NL

50K - 110 K - mostly 50NL

110K - 140K - mostly 100-200 NL

[thedustbustr]

smaller sample size, but the only thing remotely resembling what you describe is a period where i was very clearly tilting. i probably dropped 30% more than i should have from variance.

edit: its mostly nl100, nl200. the break even stretch is half 100 half 200.