Variance?
Is something that I have been avoiding this week, by moving temporarily down to $20NL, but I got to thinking about it whilst commenting on Ricci's blog this morning (http://riccinas.blogspot.com/).
Having looked closely at both $20NL and $50NL on Prima this month, I would say that the main difference is that there are more aggressive players on $50NL.
This is to be expected, of course, but it strikes me that it does very dramatically increase the variance that you will experience.
Apologies for the extremely over-simplified maths that follows(!), but as the stakes are 2.5x higher, and there are perhaps twice as many aggro players, I think that the $50NL game could easily result in swings that are 5x greater (in pure dollar terms) than at $20NL.
I think it is possible to imagine that people are slightly less likely to push all-in at $50NL than at $25NL, simply because it is more money to risk, but I think that this is very significantly more than offset by the fact that people are willing to 3bet and 4bet either very light, or with complete air.
I know that this is a grossly simplistic line of thought, but I am thinking that a session "running good" at $20NL might result in a win of say $20 in 200 hands, and a session "running bad" at $20NL might result in a loss of say $15.
By applying the 5x multiplier, this could mean that running good at $50NL I could win $100 in 200 hands, whilst I could expect to lose $75 in 200 hands when running bad. Does this make sense?
Also, when considering $100NL, I assume that this game is a further degree more aggressive, and so could result in even more variance?
I am not sure where this line of thought is leading, except to reinforce the need to be properly bankrolled for a given level, and to ensure that one sets stop-losses when moving up, to make sure that the variance doesn't consume you whilst you are finding your feet at the higher stakes.
So, when moving up, it is perfectly possible to imagine that you string 4 or 5 sessions of "running bad" together, add in a a bit of tilt at your "bad luck", and before you know it, you have lost 7 or 8 buyins or nearly half your bankroll (assuming that you started with the 20x minimum for the new level).
Food for thought...
Is something that I have been avoiding this week, by moving temporarily down to $20NL, but I got to thinking about it whilst commenting on Ricci's blog this morning (http://riccinas.blogspot.com/).
Having looked closely at both $20NL and $50NL on Prima this month, I would say that the main difference is that there are more aggressive players on $50NL.
This is to be expected, of course, but it strikes me that it does very dramatically increase the variance that you will experience.
Apologies for the extremely over-simplified maths that follows(!), but as the stakes are 2.5x higher, and there are perhaps twice as many aggro players, I think that the $50NL game could easily result in swings that are 5x greater (in pure dollar terms) than at $20NL.
I think it is possible to imagine that people are slightly less likely to push all-in at $50NL than at $25NL, simply because it is more money to risk, but I think that this is very significantly more than offset by the fact that people are willing to 3bet and 4bet either very light, or with complete air.
I know that this is a grossly simplistic line of thought, but I am thinking that a session "running good" at $20NL might result in a win of say $20 in 200 hands, and a session "running bad" at $20NL might result in a loss of say $15.
By applying the 5x multiplier, this could mean that running good at $50NL I could win $100 in 200 hands, whilst I could expect to lose $75 in 200 hands when running bad. Does this make sense?
Also, when considering $100NL, I assume that this game is a further degree more aggressive, and so could result in even more variance?
I am not sure where this line of thought is leading, except to reinforce the need to be properly bankrolled for a given level, and to ensure that one sets stop-losses when moving up, to make sure that the variance doesn't consume you whilst you are finding your feet at the higher stakes.
So, when moving up, it is perfectly possible to imagine that you string 4 or 5 sessions of "running bad" together, add in a a bit of tilt at your "bad luck", and before you know it, you have lost 7 or 8 buyins or nearly half your bankroll (assuming that you started with the 20x minimum for the new level).
Food for thought...
posted by robracing at
8:44 am
4 Comments:
With out a doubt bankroll is one of the most important things when stepping up .
Im prety sure that one other important factor is that of experience on the level you are steppig up to . Whether that be through watching someone sweat or watching vids or plain just watching tables .
You need to understand what the betting patterns are and how theses players play .
I usually 4 table 50 nl but i just 1 table 100nl until i am comfident of understanding the play thats how ill carry on , it also means i watch more carefully .
By
grinder, at 3:43 pm
I've read several times that aggression is a huge influence on aggression. I remember there was a very detailed thread on the correlation of aggression to variance when 6-max limit HE had been common for about a year, and it's the biggest reason why 6-max has more variance than full ring at a given game.
In addition, you need more bankroll per level you go up (in terms of buy-ins or big blinds) because the players are better in general, which also increases your risk of ruin.
By
Marc, at 4:45 pm
My brain hurts after reading all that and I work in and Accounts Dept!!!!
Seriously I would tend to agree with what your saying. I'm starting to think that you need 25 X the buy ins before moving up and if you lose 3/4 buy ins move back down to the previous level. Eventually you'll get used to the higher level and start becoming a winner there without risking alot.
By
losbert, at 11:22 pm
Intresting post i just think its stakes there will be bigger swings cause your playing for more cash plus the 20nl players wont be sizing there bets to intice you to call like the 100nl players will be. Some will know about ev and bet accordingly you call thinking your getting the right implied odds but really there makeing money on you. Theres a topic about it in the sklansky miller book very good reading.
I have a br managment thing i got from a person on cr it move up with 25BI for the next level move down if you lose 5 and rebuild so 50nl would be 1250 and move down if you hit 1000 or 2500 for 100 and down if you hit 2000. You would find it almost impossible to go broke using this providing you dont have a habbit of getting drunk and playing higher stakes at weekends.
From you last post you got me thinking about the sites i play your right about there being easier sites and i think iam going to move to get rakeback somewhere so i think ill be making a change to my goals for the month its not september yet so i can :).
PS. your video link is broke.
Best of luck
By
RakebackFAQ, at 12:42 am
Post a Comment
<< Home