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!
Negative Variance?
OK - So we know when playing poker we are going to get some variance right? even more so if we are mainly playing MTT's
But what if we have a negative variance?
We all know or should know that if we keep getting it in ahead, over time variance should be in our favour, we should be winning more than we are losing.
But what if we are losing more than we are winning?
How long can we wait for variance to swing in our favour?
Variance is a bit of a beast, you could go on a losing streak for 6 months and then go on a winning streak, but what if we only go on a winning streak for 3 months? and then our variance changes again.
Should we be winning more in 3 months than we are losing in 6 months?
Is variance determined by the way we play or what we play?
If we consistently have a negative variance does this make us a bad player?
Or......
Is there any possibility if we do things by the book we will turn a profit before arthritis sets in?
Lots to digest I know but opinions please?
But what if we have a negative variance?
We all know or should know that if we keep getting it in ahead, over time variance should be in our favour, we should be winning more than we are losing.
But what if we are losing more than we are winning?
How long can we wait for variance to swing in our favour?
Variance is a bit of a beast, you could go on a losing streak for 6 months and then go on a winning streak, but what if we only go on a winning streak for 3 months? and then our variance changes again.
Should we be winning more in 3 months than we are losing in 6 months?
Is variance determined by the way we play or what we play?
If we consistently have a negative variance does this make us a bad player?
Or......
Is there any possibility if we do things by the book we will turn a profit before arthritis sets in?
Lots to digest I know but opinions please?
Comments
I think Variance can almost be beat. By adapting your game when your on a downswing. Ofc you still wont win as much as im suggesting a minimal loss theory. By folding more, betting maybe a bit less when you have it to ensure getting paid, not chasing draws or taking needless flips you can still break a small profit imo.
I think 6 max is different from a 9 seater in these terms aswell. Your more likley to be on a looser table 6 max and because its 6 max you might have to play even wider a range. so 9 seaters are differnetly my preferable when on a downswing.
If your saying a 6 month downswing followed by a heater for 3 months then in MTT terms you should definetly win more in those 3 months if you apply yourself correctly. Maybe play slightly higher limits/satting into bigger tournaments. If your not comfortable moving up a level or satting into ME's then increase your volume of the stake your at. By doing this i think you might be guarenteed to make more than your losing streak.
However 6 months downswing into a normal run for 3 months (normal run meaning odds are with you, winning around theright % losing the right %) then it can be that little bit trickier, but thats where the "better" players prove them selves.
hello trev,
there are two separate elements here. one is a change in your play and the other is a change in your fortunes (variance).
to me, variance means that from the same standard of play you will get a range of results. however with a variable standard of play you will get a far wider range. it sounds as if you are waiting for variance to restore your results, whereas it is your play that needs to return to your normal standard.
hope it helps in your thinking.
regards
rob
I learned to play hold'em two years ago, playing at a local pub one evening a week, and supplementing this with some online play for practice. It became quite clear early on that this idea that it was a game of skill where the better players won (like chess) was a myth, and that variance/luck/fluctuation (call it what you will) had a big bearing on the results. I gave it up in the end as I got bored watching people with no real insight into the game regularly walking away with my money as a result of hitting on long odds draws (ie chasing the 14-1 draws on the river) and coming up trumps. Don't get me wrong, I have a firm grounding in statistics and understand variance, standard deviation from the mean average, trends etc etc, and accepted it was just how the cards turned up. However, it quickly wore very thin despite the amount of play representing a very tiny sample.
I took up playing again recently, and the different angle I took this time was to record and analyse the stats behind every session. I built a sexpot spreadsheet so all I have to do is copy and paste in the hand history figures and the computer does all of he analysis. Since doing this I've captured the history of every hand I've played (which now totals 6,291). The trends have been an eye-opener.
Now back to the issue of variance. An interesting conundrum is how to determine a base-line win (or loss) rate and from there how to measure three standard deviations each side of it to determine what is an expected level of variance. For those who like numbers, take a look at this article:
http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/03/nlhe_6m_pros/
It basically suggests that all of the factors contributing to the variance in the game make it virtually impossible to put a stick in the ground with any degree of confidence, and that even with a 50,000 hand sample coming out ahead could be due to someone being a $#it hot player, or alternatively a a very lucky donk. The author reckons that even with 700,000 hands there's only a 95% confidence level that a win rate is true. Puts my 6,291 hands into perspective?
So, following on from that, if it's not possible to accurately determine the variance in the game (given a consistent set of conditions, ie number of players, style, betting range etc), how is it possible to separate out the results from negaitve variance and the results of bad play and bad decision making? I think the short answer is that it isn't. All we can do is to analyse our wins and losses and be honest about whether we won or lost as a result of bad play or bad luck. Inevitably it'll be a combination of both, although the bad play will probably be a greater proportion of it than most like to think - I've never met anyone yet who'll admit to being a poor poker player (or a bad driver as it happens). Me? I'm not a hopeless case but I wouldn't admit to being anything other than that either.
In my own particular case, overall I'm 1,871 Big Blinds down, which represents 8.36% of the total bet. Bearing in mind the rake averages out at 16.41% of the profits on those hands I contest and win (in contrast to it usually referred to as a percentage of the pot), I've managed to cover the losses on the hands I fold and a chunk of the rake - but overall I've played a losing game. The figures confirm this and it's not up for debate.
But out of my 6,291 hands, just 31 (only half a per cent of the hands I have played) account for the loss of 2,161 BBs - more than the total I'm down. Out of these 31 hands, in all honesty I would have played nearly all in exactly the same way, and most were lost as a result of an opponent pulling a 10-1+ draw on the turn or the river. And from the relatively small sample of hands I've played there does seem to be a consistent trend line - going South. Win a bit, lose a bit, win a bit more than you lose and then ZONK, lose 100+ BBs on a hand that the maths say has a huge advantage but where someone gets lucky. My personal worst beat was where my all-in of 100+ BBs was called and the opponent could only draw one card on the river for a winning hand (45-1). It happened. Losing to a quad on the flop once at 407-1 was another, although for balance I should say I have hit quads on the flop twice myself since I started playing again.
In conclusion, I think that any ideal re carrying on playing to ride out the variance is a misnoma unless you're going to play so much you'll eventually become joined at the hip with your PC or laptop. How many hands will an average player play over six months? And in addition (a very big "AND") you're not going to change the conditions of play in a detrimental way, ie loosening up or playing 6 player cash tables instead of 10 player tables (because they're all full). If you do this I think you're crossing into a twilight zone where the game will never be beatable due to the increased frequency of the blinds.
I think a more fundimental question players should ask themselves is how much pain they're prepared to take and how much money they're able and willing to throw at the game until their "downturn" reverses. This is where the whole idea of gambling responsibly (and I use the term gambling deliberately) is important. For those people who do crunch the numbers, there's a very real risk they'll kid themselves that their consistent losses are the result of negative variance that will upswing if they keep playing and topping up their accounts. What's more important is knowing when to cut your losses, and just accept it's a volatile game and you're one of the majority of people who hasn't managed to beat it - whether for reasons of negative variance/bad luck or poor play. Whether you come to this conclusion after three months, six months, a year, whatever, is largely academic. It's important to draw a line somewhere.
Good cards everyone.
I'm getting a strong feeling that we should be in control of variance and not let variance control us. I know i have lots to do to fine tune my game (Well almost a complete overhaul lol) but at least I am at a point where I have a greater understanding of the game and quite capable of adapting various types of play into my game.
I would love to be in the mind set of Scotty77 who I think is a great MTT player. Having played with him a few times on line and then watching him play live at walsall, it puts my game to shame and I don't think variance is even in his vocabulary lol.
Right, I best get some work done before the boss comes (Oh! I am the boss) Right you're fired!!!!!!!!
Welcome to the forum. This was a very interesting read indeed. well done.
like tiger woods it was first a knee problem, then a tree crash problem, followed by the revelation of an uncontrollable womanising problem. it wasn't variance though.
ps i guess your knees are fine
Ok I could go read a book or two, but i much prefer to hear the views of experienced players from different levels to help me in my quest for perfection (If that were ever posible lol).
It depends. Variance doesn't care about the BI of the tournies you are playing in. You could be running hot in a 2.20DS but running bad in the 55Primo so its very possible that you will be playing good solid poker, but still be losing.
Is variance determined by the way we play or what we play?
Bit of both. However if we are consistantly making the right decision then it shouldn't matter. The level of tournie/quality of player will be a factor. But if we are a fundamentally bad player then we will be a losing player. Theres nothing wrong with that, just as long as we are comfortable with the amount we lose and it doesn't mean that we are taking our TV down to Cash Converters just so we can get a poker fix
Is there any possibility if we do things by the book we will turn a profit before arthritis sets in?
Good solid ABC poker will always see you breaking even/making a small profit. You should be aware of other styles tho as the best possible style can change from tournie to tournie, table to table and also player to player. IE we are in the Primo with 10bb theres only 1 move. However if we are CL with 60 left in the 33BH with 100bb then we have so many options plus with bounties we should be opening light. One of the biggest parts of poker is to be able to adapt.
Another thing that should be considered is confidence. Poker is very much of a confidence game and if you are feeling that your running bad/being hammered by the deck then you are probably gonna be playing bad too. Take a break/buy a couple of poker books/move down to some lower BI tournies...anything that can get some confidence back. Its amazing what one nice cash/taking a tournie down can do for your game.
Having played with him a few times on line and then watching him play live at walsall, it puts my game to shame and I don't think variance is even in his vocabulary lol.
Thank you. Personally I consider myself a slightly above average player and there are many, many players on Sky who are far better than me. I've been running good lately but I've also been confident in my game. Variance does affect me just like anyone. If you look at my sharkscope, there was about 1k of tournies where my line barely moved in an upwards direction.
If, as in my case, the trend line for wins/losses heads south pretty consistently, through the 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 hand marks, then there's a message in there. The question that falls out of that is how much time, money and effort you're able and willing to spend on attempting to influence it?
With regard to one of the comments above by Scotty77 to the effect that good, solid poker players should always be at least breaking even, it not making a marginal profit, I'm afraid I have my reservations about this. In my own case, the rake on my winning hands has worked out to be consistently in the region of 16%, and taking into account my losses on hands folded represent about 14% of the total I've bet, it means that I will need to play consistently (sorry, used that word again) at a 18%ish advantage to beat the game. Bearing in mind the dynamics of the game and the variance angle this is a pretty tall order. You wouldn't play a table game in a casino that carried an 18% house edge would you? This is more than the worst options on a craps table. I'm sure if I tightened up to a point where I only played a small selection of monster hands, the variance would reduce, but I don't think it fundimentally impact on the effect of the rake on winning hands - you'd also end up being so tight the moment you played a hand everyone else would bail????
Variance is one element that impacts on beating the game, but the effect of the rake is also profound and I think under-estimated.
FYP
When you are having a bad run you should always go back and look at your play to see what you have done both right and wrong. If you do this and decide that you did everything right and just got unlucky then i would suggest stop lying to yourself and look again.Even the best players in the world are still learning and noone ever plays perfectly for a protracted period of time.
Simple issues can cloud your opinions as well. The comment " i got it in good" for one. Just because you were ahead at the time does not mean you should even have been there in the first place. Shoving with a short stack and losing to an inferior hand, the question should never be about the exit hand but about why you were short in the first place.
We all go on bad runs and some of this is through bad luck but a lot of it is through bad decision making on our part.We should always be striving to improve our own game rather than looking for excuses for not winning. As soon as the word Variance comes out it tends more often than not to be used as reason for not winning whilst ignoring the major problems that exist.
So for me re-evaluation and learning is the way to go not thinking about variance.
Thanks peeps, all your opinions are much appreciated.
Further on the subject of variance and volatility, how's this?
In my last 8 sessions, totalling 557 hands, I've dropped 784 Big Blind equivalents, with an aggregated "win" rate of -35%. 355 of these were on just 5 hands. I've reviewed these, and am content I played each of these whilst having a hefty mathematical advantage, and just saw my chips depart as a result of a 2 or 3 out of 47/46 cards left showing up on the turn or the river. So each of these were a loss to an 8-1ish draw or longer. Overall, the 784 BBs represent 42% of my total losses to date although the 557 hands played only represent a little under 9%. Bad streak/variance or bad play?
Probably a combination of both, although I'd contest that at least half of it was variance - I routinely review all hands where I lose more than 25 BBs, and most of these show I've played made hands that on balance of probabiliy have an advantage at the point I commit. Not always, sometimes I catch a cold as a result of someone slow playing a better starting hand, and taking it as a result of having better cards in the hole. I accept that this happens.
So where do I go now? I reckon that on my figures I need to play at an 18% advantage (as a opposed to the recent 8 sessions where I've played at a 35% disadvantage) just to overcome the rake and breakeven. I haven't calculated what average advantage I would need to play at, and over how many hands, in order to get back the recent loss of 784 BBs, but I suspect it'll be something silly, and in view of the variance in the game, quite unachieveable. In this case I have to conclude that theses losses are irrecoverable, if I continue playing at the same level.
So, looking at the numbers, I think the moral of the story to anyone is don't even think about chasing losses - or of playing more or at higher levels (as this can be the thin end of the wedge) and forget about all of the rhetoric about variance evening itself out over time. The variance in poker is, in the main, unmeasurable, and so there's no way of ever proving, using maths, how long this may take. I think what you can be sure of is that you'll never play enough hands where you'll see it start to even out.
There are some things you can do to reduce variance. Put a cap on the maximum amount you're prepared to call with where there's any possibility that your hand can be out-drawn or beaten - as a means of avoiding large losses. Trouble, with this is you may regularly be throwing away a winning hand - are you really going to fold the top set full house on the grounds there's a possibility someone is holding the other two undercards and has hit a quad? What about a King or Queen high flush? You could also play higher levels with better players, who won't chase the 14-1 draws on the river? The mathematical odds variance may decrease, but with better players it's likely you'll have to deal with a lot more of the mind-games nonesense that is a big part of the game. Neither of these are really good ideas - and you'd probably be cutting your nose off to spite your face by adopting them.
Alternatively, despite the fact that the game requires a fair amount of decision making, based on many considerations - so a degree of skill is requried - accept that when you sit down to play poker you're gambling, and as such there's a chance you'll lose. End of. I'm sure there are a small minority of very good players who have managed to "beat the game" (ie are in the black and consistently turn a profit), but as long as they don't have control over all of the elements of the game, the biggest being others' behaviour of course, they're still gambling too, although perhaps with a reduced prospect of losing.
Just a final thought on the issue of variance. It's often said that it runs both ways. I'm not always sure it does though? As I've already commented on, a hefty chunk of my losses tend to be to people who play through long-odds draws and hit their cards. In theory it should run both ways? But as I don't tend to play 8-1+ draws unless the pot-odds make it favourable to do so (which is rare), there are few opportunities for the variance on these hands to run in my favour. For those people born lucky (not sure I'm one of them), loosening up, chasing and and gambling more can pay dividends - as it did for me fairly recently when I came second in a 500 entrant freeroll and picked up £15. I would say by the time it got to the final table skill wasn't a factor at all, and it was purely down to the size of players' stacks and who got the cards. For once I was lucky.
Good cards.
Some more personal experience - my last session at the cash tables I played 96 hands, with total bet being £19.19 (I play the lowest tables as I've never managed to get to the point where I can justify moving up). Out of the final 10 hands, I lost 7 with total losses on these being £8.30. That's -43% in just roughly 7% of the hands played. Five of these seven hands I played through with a huge advantage at the point of commitment.
I've had a similar experience on the other site I play at where 4 hands have eaten roughly a third of my account balance. One recent hand that comes to mind is the one where a chump called into the pot with a single blind with 74o and hit 6,5,2 on the flop. I raised 17 BBs with pocket Jacks, he called and didn't hit anything on the turn. I raised 17 BBs again and he still called - so he's on a 8/46, or 6-1, draw. Needless to say, the river card was one of those eight cards; a three. So I ended up another 35 BBs down. In theory, if I were one of the winning players who purport to make an average profit of 3BBs per 100 hands, then I'd have to play over another 1,000 hands just to make this back (playing with a consistent advantage of c20%+).
If I'd been betting pounds rather than pennies/cents, I'd now be seeking counselling.
I think someone above has written that he thinks the variance in the game can be beaten. My response would be to suggest that he takes a course in statistics.
Good cards.