Where do you draw the line of variance???

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.

10-buy in swings do happen (gabe mentioned he had one at 100NL). But chances are, if you move down and they are still happening, you probably have some leaks. Also, if you play a more aggro style, you will have bigger swings than a taggy player. Post some stats maybe?

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

i am in the midst of a 10 buy-in swing right now. didn't think it would ever get this bad but the cards just keep on punishing me.

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..

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 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.

I nearly lost my whole 2k br back in late dec-late feb (about the time the swings stopped). It sucks hardcore; maybe try switching it up if it still happens - go to some low limit SNGs or something?

I recommend taking a break;post some hh's for us and we can help out.You're be refreshed in time whenever the next Party reload comes he he.

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..

Well put! Very accurate of how I was thinking after that downswing. After that 10-buy in swing at Pokerstars. I switched to Fulltilt and I let a friend analyze my HH. He noticed that I had been to passive on a lot of the cards I've been getting (I started playing really passive after my big downswing) Normally I'm a full ring player but he told me to try 6-max because it'll help me out. Sure enough it did. I've learned to be more aggressive by reraising preflop and I'm seeing a difference here. I'm starting to love 6-max. If I ever go back to full ring I'll have a different set of mind. I think I'm starting to see the bigger picture of why N/L Holdem' is a position game and not what cards you have that makes you win in the long run.

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.

Been there, done that.

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.

That's because you're a fish, Fish. :P

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

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.

I dont really think thats too accurate at all. Why would 5:1 be variance, but 4:1 not? How did you decide that number? It seems more like you are setting guidelines for what a bad beat is and isnt.

I agree that it is often blamed for leaks in our games, but I dont think it is really the way you described it.

Experiencing "negative variance" would be losing multiple 4:1s, 5:1s, etc. in a row, not just one. A single hand cant really be attributed to variance, but a series of hands in the short term that go against the statistical longterm outcomes of those hands.

To me, variance is when you get your money in with the best of it and the percentages are in your favor, yet you still lose. Or, the percentages are not in your favor, but you suck out.

Period.

Why cant variance be attributed to one hand? Regardless if you were supposed to win one hand in a row or four hands in a row, and lost them, its still variance.

Variance is just a term used to describe improbable outcomes in the short run. The long run is unaffected by variance.

Bad beat = variance
Sucking out = variance

I think multiple bad beats in a row or multiple suckouts in a row would be more accurately be described as a downswing or an upswing. The actual beats themselves though are the variance in the game.

I dunno why you guys are making this so complicated. Variance is just a name for short-term ups and downs, whether it be from taking bad beats, sucking out, tilting, getting a hot run of cards, getting a cold run of cards, etc.

My take on negative variance:

I kinda split it in two.

- card variance: when your opponents either keep flopping monsters on your good hands (like overset on your set), or have better hands (like AA vs your KK) just too damn often, or a suckout (hits his 4-outer on the river). These you can't do anything about.

- personal variance: the 4 emotions that can fuck your game over: 1) fear 2) frustration (tilt) 3) overconfidence 4) fatigue. You try to avoid these as best as you can, but it's unrealistic to think you can avoid them completely.

I personally consider it a bad beat when you get the money in at 70% or more to win and lose. I also acknowledge that I "got lucky there" if I go in with 30% or less and win anyway. However I will not immediately be blaming "variance" when I run into crap like a bad beat, or a flopped 2 pair on my AA.. but when this is happening just too often than normal odds would suggest.

Very accurate of how I was thinking after that downswing.

It's not too uncommon

I think I'm starting to see the bigger picture of why N/L Holdem' is a position game and not what cards you have that makes you win in the long run.

The next step would be that you see it's a combination of both Oh and 6max is indeed where it's at!

When ever I am in the middle of bad run I try to take a real honest look at it. And say how much is bad luck and how much has been bad play. What I find is it starts with a lot of bad luck. Maybe 90% bad luck and 10% dumb plays. And after a few more real bad beats becomes 50% bad luck and 50% dumb plays. A ten buy in down swing is a lot. I remeber one time I was down about 5 buy ins. Than I lost with queens full twice in ten minutes at the same table to the same person. After that it was truely 50 50 until I pulled myself in. Ended up down around 10 buy ins before it swung back. Take an honest look at your game.

Why would 5:1 be variance, but 4:1 not?

its pretty arbitrary i know, but i draw the line at 5:1 because that is the point where you are a stronger favorite than facing a straight or flush draw. i do not consider negative variance to include losing to a legitimate draw, thats all i was going with that. 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.

however in a situation where someone calls you all in with 2 pr because they make a mistake and think they have the best hand, then hit their four-outer anyway=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.

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.

My worst swing to date has been about 12 buy-ins, I was able to overcome this and move on... I think the biggest reason for most of those losses was due to me tilting.

Also my best positive swing has been about 16 buy-ins, so I suppose things even out for the best.

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 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.

Variance = Luck. What one considers bad (or good) luck differs from person to person.

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.

a lot of great players would strongly disagree with you.

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.

I don't think you really understand what variance is.

I'll give you an example. Lukie gets it allin with a flush draw. Bdawg has a set. Bdawg wins the pot.

Lukie has negative variance here. He had 25% equity in the pot and won 0% of it.


How come losing to a runner runner flush is variance but losing to a normal flush draw isn't?

How come losing to a set with AA is variance but losing to AK with KK isn't?

Sorry, I don't want to be mean or disrespectful or anything, but your definition of variance is extremely flawed and wrong.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

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

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 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.

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

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.

He never mentioned his winrate in the post you quoted, he said sd/100, standard deviation.

My bad! (and suddenly his post makes sense, lol)

Originally Posted by "jackvance

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

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.

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.

Yeah. I've made a post to this effect a while back too (beginner's forum) - namely that upon critical inspection of my play, I always donked off more on tilt/annoyance/frustration after a bad beat than I do on the bad beat itself! Then they suddenly become twice as expensive! Not to mention the confidence loss which means more losses afterwards etc..

There are a lot of posts popping up that show people falling in this pattern. In the shorthanded forum, a post by lambchop seems to indicate he fell for it too. (he said this himself afterwards)