You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
variance - a red herring.
Variance is accepted s part of poker. The accepted remedy is to multi-table and therefore even it out but I think this is wrong. Variance is about probability and luck and s Tkay used to say cards heve no memory so the probabilities are the same each time a hand is played. So we rely on the law of averages to even out the luck but here is no guarantee that it will.
Assuming it does, playing more tables is not so relevant as playing more hands but the logic of that is you play every hand - and if everyone plays every hand you are going to lose 5 out of 6 ( on that same law of averages ) and everyone in the end should break even except , because of rake, they will ultimately all lose.
But should you accept variance as a concept, it is a risk you have to take on board and why try to minimse it because risk is part of the game and it would be no fun wiithout it ( even the bad beat moaners hve to accept that ).
Again , if you multi-table and play, say £100 on each of ten tables you can assume that you may win on some and lose on others ( though not necessarily ) and because the skill factor is reduced - you cannot put full concentration to ten tables ( 50 opponents ) - you are no more likely to make a profit than playing one table and you could still lose the lot. In fact , as above, the more tables you play above a certain limit the more likely you are to lose over all.
In fact , if you put that £1ooo on one table and put your full concentratiion on it you have a better chance of a profit ( or take a minimal hit ) because you can control when you leave a hand or the game and you can focus on your opponents better.
Plus there are too many other factors that come into play . Variance can only apply to race situations and most hands are won and lost without it coming to a race. Strategy, psychology and gambling ( in other words the decisions you make ) are all as important , if not more so and all are easier to apply on one table.
I suppose what I am saying is - Don't multi-table to beat variance and kill the fun of the game but if playing more tables increases your concentration and enjoyment that is fair enough but don't try to cure the incurable.
Thats it for my New Year ramble - and a happy one to all who waded their way through this waffle.
Now feel free to beat me up.
Assuming it does, playing more tables is not so relevant as playing more hands but the logic of that is you play every hand - and if everyone plays every hand you are going to lose 5 out of 6 ( on that same law of averages ) and everyone in the end should break even except , because of rake, they will ultimately all lose.
But should you accept variance as a concept, it is a risk you have to take on board and why try to minimse it because risk is part of the game and it would be no fun wiithout it ( even the bad beat moaners hve to accept that ).
Again , if you multi-table and play, say £100 on each of ten tables you can assume that you may win on some and lose on others ( though not necessarily ) and because the skill factor is reduced - you cannot put full concentration to ten tables ( 50 opponents ) - you are no more likely to make a profit than playing one table and you could still lose the lot. In fact , as above, the more tables you play above a certain limit the more likely you are to lose over all.
In fact , if you put that £1ooo on one table and put your full concentratiion on it you have a better chance of a profit ( or take a minimal hit ) because you can control when you leave a hand or the game and you can focus on your opponents better.
Plus there are too many other factors that come into play . Variance can only apply to race situations and most hands are won and lost without it coming to a race. Strategy, psychology and gambling ( in other words the decisions you make ) are all as important , if not more so and all are easier to apply on one table.
I suppose what I am saying is - Don't multi-table to beat variance and kill the fun of the game but if playing more tables increases your concentration and enjoyment that is fair enough but don't try to cure the incurable.
Thats it for my New Year ramble - and a happy one to all who waded their way through this waffle.
Now feel free to beat me up.
Comments
But think the bolded bit is the main reason why I disagree with a lot of the rest.
There's so much variance, or 'luck' in poker, believing it only occurs in race situations is just wrong.
Say I entered the main event tonight and got a table off mattbates, tommyd, yoyo, scotty, lolufold and jac.
That would be insane luck wouldn't it?
All the good players in the field and I get myself the softest table in sky main event history.
+ve variance for sure, before a card is even dealt.
Variance is everywhere, not only in poker, Could probably write a book longer than The Bible on variance, it's certainly not only in race situations.
A lot of other good points though, nice post.
haha, even my attempt to give Jac a disguised compliment turned out to be an un-intentional rubdown.
Sorry Paul, no room @ the Inn, back into the group of 400+ other 'good' players you go
The reason I say it only applies to races is because that is the one time when the result is out of your hands. You cannot escape. But thanks for the kind replies. It's quite difficult to write a post when the sun shines on the screen and youve got two tables going. One pops up and half of it ends up in the chat box baffling the world.
esponse to Re: variance - a red herring.:
In Response to Re: variance - a red herring.: