4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,875
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monsieur_chat
Robb, would you say you found more variance in your win rates at the micros than at the stakes you play at now? i.e some days absolutely destroying it, others down BIs, as opposed to a smaller but steadier win rate?
I spent most of last month steadily beating 2nl for approx 9pt/BB100+ but now I seem to have stalled. I'm sure it's partly to do with leaks in my game, but I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts...
|
I think the opposite seems true. When I was crushing 10nl (avg 9 ptBB/100 for 18k hands right before I moved up), I rarely had a down session if I played more than an hour. At 50nl, about 40% of my sessions are negative, but my win rate is only 3 ptBB/100 right now. So I'm not sure if there's more variance or less, but with the huge win rates possible at 10nl and below, you have to take a good number of bad beats (or tilt) in a short time period to be negative for a session of 1k hands + .
Funny thing, tho, at 50nl: the game is more stable and less "swingy" since there's fewer fish. Reading ranges is easier because most folks play "decent" cards. You know when you get to showdown what 3 or 4 hands you'll probably see. Unlike 10nl and worse, where you get to showdown and think "ZOMG I never would've expected him to call down with THAT!!"
The problem at 50nl is that your win rates are lower since the fish aren't stacking off with crap every 50 hands. You have to actually outplay people (who are opening essentially the same range as you are) to win at 50nl, imo. So it's stable, sure, but the all-in hands are harder to dominate than at 10nl or even 25nl - they don't get all-in w/ crap, typically. So you have more variance in the big hands, even though the game feels "saner" and less "crazy."
To summarize, no, I don't buy that the micros are higher variance 'cuz of all the fish. I think the micros are lower variance precisely BECAUSE of the fish.
|