Originally Posted by Off5th

I'm sure most of you guys who has been playing online poker for a while now ran into variance. But I'm wondering where do you draw the line from variance to a "need of reconstructing your gameplay"??? I had a 3k br for 100 n/l and had a 10-buy in swing so moved down to 50 n/l and still the swings are coming. I would like to get some feedback on the types of variances you guys ran into.....I'm talking about big variances here so please feel free to post.

Originally Posted by jackvance

It is possible this is variance, but most likely a leak or your game has changed without you noticing - particularly if a few bad beats have started messing with your mind. That's classic; You lose balance, play scared, then notice this and try to be more aggressive - ofcourse at the wrong time. Then it just spirals from bad to worse if your confidence goes down the drain.

I'd say 20% chance pure cards, 80% chance your game due to probably psychological reasons.

In the case you are playing scared - no idea if this is so - then it probably goes like this: you aren't maximizing value anymore on your good hands because you are afraid of suckouts. And you are also scared to get run over or bluffed out, so you will call down when obviously beat. So you maximize your losses and minimize your profits, the other way around than it should be. The occasional bad beat that happens to everyone then has a great impact on your BR, because you aren't compensating for it anymore with maximizing your profits on good hands and minimizing losses on your second bests.

If you can in any way relate this to your situation, then there's your problem right there..

Originally Posted by Lukie

a few weeks ago I dropped about 3 buyins at NL400 and about 3 buyins at NL600 in around an hour. I probably got screwed out of around $2,000 in equity (variance) and tilted some more off.

Originally Posted by Lukie

a few weeks ago I dropped about 3 buyins at NL400 and about 3 buyins at NL600 in around an hour. I probably got screwed out of around $2,000 in equity (variance) and tilted some more off.

Originally Posted by siknd

we all talk about variance in some vague sense. but how do you define it literally? i think variance is a little more rare than most ppl would like to think.

i define variance as losing with the money in as a 5:1 favorite or better.

examples:

variance
1. losing with 55 to A7 on a 357flop.
2. losing to set with AA
3. losing with set under set
4. never setting pocket pairs in a session.
5. losing several times in a row in race situations eg AK vs PP.
6. the dreaded running four flush.

NOT variance
1. losing with flopped straight
2. losing with best hand to a flush/ straight draw (even if opp given horrid odds)
3. AK vs AQ
4. KK vs AK

ive lost six buyins in an hour before, but ive never blamed it on variance.

Originally Posted by siknd

if the pot is 2$ on the turn, you have the current nuts and theres a flush draw out there, and you go all in for a hundred more, and he calls and hits his flush: i dont think that can be called variance, u should just expect to win the next four times in that situation.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

I agree that that single event would be a bad beat; however, it would be negative variance if you didnt win the next four times or a proportional amount over a fairly short period of time. We are really just arguing semantics.

Originally Posted by jmontis

I know if you go from limit A to limit B, and go from winner to loser, it's because those players are better than you or you play incorrectly in those games.

Originally Posted by siknd

we all talk about variance in some vague sense. but how do you define it literally? i think variance is a little more rare than most ppl would like to think.

i define variance as losing with the money in as a 5:1 favorite or better.

examples:

variance
1. losing with 55 to A7 on a 357flop.
2. losing to set with AA
3. losing with set under set
4. never setting pocket pairs in a session.
5. losing several times in a row in race situations eg AK vs PP.
6. the dreaded running four flush.

NOT variance
1. losing with flopped straight
2. losing with best hand to a flush/ straight draw (even if opp given horrid odds)
3. AK vs AQ
4. KK vs AK

ive lost six buyins in an hour before, but ive never blamed it on variance.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Another big factor is over how many hands did this happen?

Originally Posted by Chicago_Kid

Yeah, I don't get this "10 buy-in swing" comment. I look at variance in terms of an absolute (+ or -) spread of profit over a set amount of hands. For example, my SD/100 hands is currently 42 big bets (that's over 24k hands). I focus on win rate, more than variance. And this is over a pretty bad stretch, for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by jackvance

So you've been having bad luck and ran at 42 ptBB/100 over 24k hands? What's next? WSOP?

Also, you never care about variance, typically, when you are winning. It only comes into play when you are losing.

Originally Posted by "jackvance

Also, you never care about variance, typically, when you are winning. It only comes into play when you are losing.

Originally Posted by Chicago_Kid

So true. In thinking a bit more about this one, I've probably had a swing of 5-6 buy-ins (both up and down) in one session, from what I can remember. I've been getting better at bearing down and playing myself out of a hole when I get down 2 buy-ins, and QUITTING if it gets past 3. A year and a half ago, I probably woulda tilted off another 2-3 buyins if I got destacked a couple times in succession.