To understand variance is very simple... you flip a coin and the probability is 50/50 so if you flip a coin 10 times what is the expected result over the course of 10 flips it could be 6/4, 7/3,8/2 - you can not control the short term variance of the flip
--
The long term result is 50/50, and if you flip 100,000 times you will come close to a 50/50 result.
--
Example 1..
You could take a bad player and they could win short term even though they are getting it in bad or 50/50.
Eventually the bad player will go broke
Example 2..
Take a good player who gets it in good or 50/50, they could lose in the short term but in the longterm they will win
--
But you need to understand the short term in varaince can be 2 weeks or 12 weeks or even longer.
sum up...
You can never be 100% guarenteed to win a hand in poker unless you have a nut hand. It's a 2% chance because that's exatcly what it is, and it will happen.
A lot of people just don't understand varaince in poker and they quit.
In Response to Re: Variance? : Yeah obviously, cos Phil Ivey could never get AA v KK pre and the villian bink their king? Or just get coolered KK v AA pre Or get it in on the flop with top set V a FD and they get there? Or get middle set into top set That's why BRM is important, cos being the best isn't enough if you can't afford to take the variance. Posted by Lambert180
I have been playing the biggest games i can buy into for the last 6 months, i started at 4nl. Now im a regular at 500nl...
In Response to Re: Variance? : I have been playing the biggest games i can buy into for the last 6 months, i started at 4nl. Now im a regular at 500nl... Are you saying i'm better than Phil Ivey? Posted by Simmy4k
No, I dunno where that leap came from. I'm saying play with 10 BIs for long enough and everyone will go bust no matter how good you are. Sometimes you'll rungood (not run bad) early doors and be alright, sometimes you won't.
I assume in your time playing you must have lost 10 BIs in a row at some point, right?
In Response to Re: Variance? : I have been playing the biggest games i can buy into for the last 6 months, i started at 4nl. Now im a regular at 500nl... Are you saying i'm better than Phil Ivey? Posted by Simmy4k
Disagree with this 110%.
I've been playing 6 months now so I know a thing or two about poker. I've probably played more hands than Ivey thanks to the new multi-table option on Sky. I lose 10-20 buy-ins some days, so I know variance when I see it. If I can lose then so can Ivey!
I think for cash games you should have at least 500 full buy-ins before moving up, this way if you have a 300 bi downswing it's no big deal and you can still load up 24 tables easily without having to play short stacked.
Trust me when I say 10bi is not enough, even if you can read timing tells and stuff. Phil Ivey may be good, but he's no better than Tom Dwan who lost millions of his roll to Isildur. And Isildur is no better than me according to the Sky regs I play with at 400nl every day.
In Response to Re: Variance? : No, I dunno where that leap came from. I'm saying play with 10 BIs for long enough and everyone will go bust no matter how good you are. Sometimes you'll rungood (not run bad) early doors and be alright, sometimes you won't. I assume in your time playing you must have lost 10 BIs in a row at some point, right? Posted by Lambert180
110% agree with this, for Simmy to assume he's better than Ivey because he took shots and ran good is just a giant leap that even a man with frog legs couldn't make.
Everyone will go bust with 100bi never mind 10. I lost 60bi this month already though I am just a recreational player so maybe it doesn't count. Still think I need 500 bi for the year though. Luckily I am super rich and can afford to play the biggest games even when running bad.
In Response to Re: Variance? : Disagree with this 110%. I've been playing 6 months now so I know a thing or two about poker. I've probably played more hands than Ivey thanks to the new multi-table option on Sky. I lose 10-20 buy-ins some days, so I know variance when I see it. If I can lose then so can Ivey! I think for cash games you should have at least 500 full buy-ins before moving up, this way if you have a 300 bi downswing it's no big deal and you can still load up 24 tables easily without having to play short stacked. Trust me when I say 10bi is not enough, even if you can read timing tells and stuff. Phil Ivey may be good, but he's no better than Tom Dwan who lost millions of his roll to Isildur. And Isildur is no better than me according to the Sky regs I play with at 400nl every day. Posted by Razzi817
In Response to Re: Variance? : 110% agree with this, for Simmy to assume he's better than Ivey because he took shots and ran good is just a giant leap that even a man with frog legs couldn't make. Everyone will go bust with 100bi never mind 10. I lost 60bi this month already though I am just a recreational player so maybe it doesn't count. Still think I need 500 bi for the year though. Luckily I am super rich and can afford to play the biggest games even when running bad. Posted by Razzi817
lol at phil ivey going broke with 10BIs if you are the best player you should be able to win every hand on the table practically Posted by Simmy4k
even Ivey loses flips. If you're the best player you should win in the long term but if you hit a cooler or get sucked out on a few times its easy to go bust before the superior skill has chance to show through if you don't manage your bankroll.
Comments
To understand variance is very simple...
you flip a coin and the probability is 50/50
so if you flip a coin 10 times what is the expected result
over the course of 10 flips it could be 6/4, 7/3,8/2 - you can not control the short term variance of the flip
--
The long term result is 50/50, and if you flip 100,000 times you will come close to a 50/50 result.
--
Example 1..
You could take a bad player and they could win short term even though they are getting it in bad or 50/50.
Eventually the bad player will go broke
Example 2..
Take a good player who gets it in good or 50/50, they could lose in the short term but in the longterm they will win
--
But you need to understand the short term in varaince can be 2 weeks or 12 weeks or even longer.
sum up...
You can never be 100% guarenteed to win a hand in poker unless you have a nut hand.
It's a 2% chance because that's exatcly what it is, and it will happen.
A lot of people just don't understand varaince in poker and they quit.
I assume in your time playing you must have lost 10 BIs in a row at some point, right?
I've been playing 6 months now so I know a thing or two about poker. I've probably played more hands than Ivey thanks to the new multi-table option on Sky. I lose 10-20 buy-ins some days, so I know variance when I see it. If I can lose then so can Ivey!
I think for cash games you should have at least 500 full buy-ins before moving up, this way if you have a 300 bi downswing it's no big deal and you can still load up 24 tables easily without having to play short stacked.
Trust me when I say 10bi is not enough, even if you can read timing tells and stuff. Phil Ivey may be good, but he's no better than Tom Dwan who lost millions of his roll to Isildur. And Isildur is no better than me according to the Sky regs I play with at 400nl every day.
Everyone will go bust with 100bi never mind 10. I lost 60bi this month already though I am just a recreational player so maybe it doesn't count. Still think I need 500 bi for the year though. Luckily I am super rich and can afford to play the biggest games even when running bad.