How to minimize standard deviation?

[_D&L_]

Fine...don't play against opponents who systematically like to make pots big. Don't look for big payouts, such as playing multiway hands where some investment might be needed, but has big payouts. Don't invest money trying to trap opponents.

Look for players, that like you, bet within a tight range. And just maybe - miraculously - you'll still be +EV. But at the very least, your s.d. will be somewhat smaller - even if you are probably losing money.

Skalansky is a mathmatician. And sometimes mathmaticians like to make points, rather than focus on worthwhile advice. His point is yes, you can control your s.d. to some extent. But its like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. He can't mathmatically prove that your chances of winning the fight are still good. And that's why its bad advice. If Skalansky had any great tricks for winning while playing a lower s.d. game I'm sure he would have shared. But alas all such tricks seem to have unworthwhile tradeoffs.

If your good enough to win so handicapped, your bankroll should be big enough that you shouldn't have to worry about a little increase in s.d.

----_Dirty&Litigious_----

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine...don't play against opponents who systematically like to make pots big. Don't look for big payouts, such as playing multiway hands where some investment might be needed, but has big payouts. Don't invest money trying to trap opponents.

Look for players, that like you, bet within a tight range. And just maybe - miraculously - you'll still be +EV. But at the very least, your s.d. will be somewhat smaller - even if you are probably losing money.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that you think that this is the best way to reduce variance. Maybe numerically it is, but you can usually acceptably reduce variance without affecting win rate very much - it's quite simple.
* Don't press small edges, like, don't bet/3bet when you are a 55:45 favorite.
* Don't aggressively value bet the river
* Fold more when you're in doubt

[ QUOTE ]

Skalansky is a mathmatician. And sometimes mathmaticians like to make points, rather than focus on worthwhile advice. His point is yes, you can control your s.d. to some extent. But its like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. He can't mathmatically prove that your chances of winning the fight are still good. And that's why its bad advice. If Skalansky had any great tricks for winning while playing a lower s.d. game I'm sure he would have shared. But alas all such tricks seem to have unworthwhile tradeoffs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is also a poker player, a poker writer, and in general a poker authority. Not everyone loves his advice, and I don't think he's perfect, but I think contemplating what he says is worthwhile. There is much of his advice that I reject, because I don't feel it's as applicable as it once was. The games have changed, the players have changed, adjustments need to be made.

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
The games have changed, the players have changed, adjustments need to be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely correct.

"The Game" is in a constant state of change. If we don't stay a few steps ahead at all times, we will be a few steps behind, at all times.

[pococurante]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Avoiding variance means that you're not playing optimally, but it does not mean that you're a losing player at all.

Also, for many (if not all) players, there is value in avoiding variance. Big downswings make you feel bad, and cause some players to go on tilt and do stupid things.

If you want a steady consistent winrate, play tight and stay aggressive. Postflop aggression is also very important.

If you want to make the absolutely highest amount of money you possibly can, a LAG style is definitely the best, but it's not for everyone. Some people aren't good LAG players, and some can't handle the swings (I'm a little of both).

I know poker's all about getting your money in as a favorite. But would you play a game where you're 50.1% to double, 49.9% to lose at $100 per game? I sure as hell wouldn't. At some point it becomes more valuable to avoid variance than to take every possible chance to gamble as a favorite.