25 replies
Dealer said everyone in that game had a bracelet. Now there are a lot of mixed and games that are not NLH or PLO high tournaments at the WSOP. Are mixed games at those stakes almost all pros and mostly good pros?
Probably not. But, since I don't know the specific game you're talking about, it could easily be a very tough game. There is even more variance in limit games than there is in no-limit. A weak player of whatever type has a better shot to beat out a given number of entries in a limit tournament than in a big bet tournament. I know somebody with multiple limit bracelets, and I think he is very weak at all the games. Even more so in cash, when he can't win pots with just random aggression.
having a bracelet doesn't mean someone is a good player
by BigBadBabar m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59309608#post59309608)
having a bracelet doesn't mean someone is a good player
Shhh I'm sitting right here :(
by DeathDonkey m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59310864#post59310864)
Shhh I'm sitting right here :(
hey i didn't say everyone with a bracelet is not a good player :p
In my experience, any mix (8+ games), will have potential 2-3k swings at any given time, easily. I am seeing 6k swings at big LHE games.
If they are all pros, they all won't be pros for long. Obviously there can be a period of time when the game is only filled with tough winning players, but long term that can't be the case. I had a 30/60 LHE game a few weeks ago where it was me along with 4 really good players, and 2 average to poor players. Multiple average players left or didn't join because of how tough the lineup was. Normally I would do the same, but I wanted some practice so I stayed until the game broke 3 handed when I finally quit.
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59308473#post59308473)
Probably not. But, since I don't know the specific game you're talking about, it could easily be a very tough game. There is even more variance in limit games than there is in no-limit. A weak player of whatever type has a better shot to beat out a given number of entries in a limit tournament than in a big bet tournament. I know somebody with multiple limit bracelets, and ... See full post
Curious about your claim that there is more variance in Limit than NL. I assume you mean for 'comparable' stakes, using the usual tournament formula, where the blinds get cut in half; are you saying there is more variance in a 10-20 NL cash game than a 40-80 mixed game? That is surprising to me. Especially if there are many split games in the mix, as there are in most mixes these days.
More variance as it compares to your winrate.
by that_pope m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59347094#post59347094)
More variance as it compares to your winrate.
That doesn't make sense either. What if my win rate is very good at one game, and very, very small at another. Then the game with the small win rate will of course have more variance compared to my win rate. This is not the first time this particular assumption has confounded me. The High Roller scene is supposed to be a victim of this phenomenon. But those are very small MTTs, as compared to say a WSOP $1500 where the variance is enormous relative to any 40 player field. There is variance. There is EV. Saying one game has more variance since your EV is so low is illogical (to me).
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59348807#post59348807)
by that_pope m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59347094#post59347094)
More variance as it compares to your winrate.
That doesn't make sense either. What if my win rate is very good at one game, and very, very small at another. Then the game with the small win rate will of course have more variance compared to my win rate.This is not the first time this particular assumption has confounded me.The High Roller scene is supposed to be a victim of th... See full post
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players? For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349115#post59349115)
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
You said there is even more variance in mixed. I may be being pedantic, but what you quote here is nothing to do with that. A game has its variance. NL HE has higher variance dollar for dollar when you compare 10/20 NL to 40/80 mixed. You are making up a risk parameter, ie Variance/Edge. You may be right; I am not sure. But the games themselves do not have more variance...
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59353157#post59353157)
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349115#post59349115)
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
You said there is even more variance in mixed. I may be being pedantic, but what you quote here is nothing to do with that. ... See full post
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59353734#post59353734)
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
We seem to be talking past each other. I get your point. It, however has nothing to do with the games variance. It IS a made up ratio that you seem to think is important.
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59354314#post59354314)
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59353734#post59353734)
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
We seem to be talking past each other. I get your point. It, however has nothing... See full post
Just because I keep telling you something is true. Something that seems to be going over your head, doesn't mean I think it is important. It just is. Sorry that is an issue for you. But you asked, and just don't seem to want to accept the answer.
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59353157#post59353157)
A game has its variance. NL HE has higher variance dollar for dollar when you compare 10/20 NL to 40/80 mixed. You are making up a risk parameter, ie Variance/Edge. You may be right; I am not sure. But the games themselves do not have more variance...
The crux of the point is that you can't compare variance between games in pure dollar terms because variance is a function of the stakes. You need some way to define equivalent stakes, which is where winrate can come into play. A more well-defined version of the statement that "mixed games have higher variance than NLHE" would be that the achievable Sharpe ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio) for a professional is higher in NLHE. You could also "compare" stakes by using a fixed ratio of the blind bet(s), which would give you a definitive answer but simply depends on what you consider to be comparable stakes - deferring what I think is the core disagreement. To wit, consider why you don't naturally think that 20/40 NLHE and 40/80 LHE are the "same" stake even though they have the same blind structure. What parameter(s) are you appealing to in order to argue that they are different stakes?
by madrabbit m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59354426#post59354426)
The crux of the point is that you can't compare variance between games in pure dollar terms because variance is a function of the stakes. You need some way to define equivalent stakes, which is where winrate can come into play.A more well-defined version of the statement that "mixed games have higher variance than NLHE" would be that the achievable Sharpe ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio) for a professio... See full post
I used the common way a tournament mixes those blinds; ie when you are playing a given stake in a mixed game, the structure will have 1/2 the blinds for the big bet games. You are also looking at this the way Greg is; looking at risk parameters for a 'pro' is useful if you are trying to make a living at the game. What I am looking at is the actual variance of the game: Put 8 players in a game and see what the SD of their results are. I am reasonably sure that what I am analyzing will yield a higher variance for the NL games. Even moreso if the mix has a bunch of split pot games. Stacks just don't fluctuate anywhere near as much in a mixed 40/80 as they do in a 10/20 NL game.
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59355079#post59355079)
All I'm reading here is that you don't have any real experience playing limit poker at medium or higher stakes. And that you're assuming you know more about it than you do. And I'm telling you, even though this isn't important, that you are wrong. Accept it, or reject it, I'm done.
Ok, now that Greg is done... Some questions that might help answer this:
by 3for3poker m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59359863#post59359863)
Ok, now that Greg is done... Some questions that might help answer this:
Your first question is totally irrelevant to the topic. The limit game will require a larger bankroll in most cases. But it depends upon how well the others in each game play. Keep at it, you might get this at some point. Or not.
Been a nlh pro for 15 years, limit games/mixed game pro for the last 6/7 years. Way more variance in limit/mixed games whether playing split pot games or not doesnt matter
by LimitBOSS m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59362024#post59362024)
Been a nlh pro for 15 years, limit games/mixed game pro for the last 6/7 years. Way more variance in limit/mixed games whether playing split pot games or not doesnt matter
Isn't that the case cause limit games are easier/more restrictive, therefore the edge is more limited, therefore swings are higher? I'd also say that in absolute terms NL games are more variance heavy, I think a very bad player could more easily do well in a NLHE tourney than a mixed game tourney, but there's just fewer really bad players. But yeah, with every year having a bunch of small field mixed game tourneys anyone who plays it as a hobby for a few years will end up as a bracelet winner so I dont think "everyone at the table has a bracelet" is a reason for the game to be very tough. I think on average rake is a way bigger issue in mixed games than in NLHE games though as edges are smaller, so any half-decent lineup will not be beatable I suppose But as for the variance, if you were to play a one-time match with a one time buyin against a huge fish who is exactly as equally bad at Limit games as in NLHE, I'd say picking limit would be a much saver option variance wise
by calebPANDA m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59384172#post59384172)
the one-time match and bankroll question are measuring different things. limit may be safer against the fish in a single buyin since there’s no single big-bet disaster, but that doesn’t mean the long-run bankroll requirement is lowerthe relevant comparison is the edge after rake and the spread of results over many sessions. if the limit edge is only a few bets per hour, lots of... See full post
I dont know the relevance of the discussion, but if you're comparing games in variance, shouldnt the skill level be equal to compare it? I.e. should you not compare vs either a huge fish equally bad in all games, or vs a GTO bot equally good in all games? If you do, then NL games will be rougher in terms of variance. If the question is, is NLHE lower variance because the potential skill gap is bigger than in the much more restricted game variants, then clearly that's the case and if you want to count variance that way I dont think many will disagree with the fact that limit variants are more restricted and therefore edges are smaller, and therefore "variance" is higher, not actual variance since variance is just how far you away from your EV. but if your EV is much higher, you will go below $0 in actual dollars a lot easier. I dont think thats how variance works though, if a pro runs 10bb/100 but has 20bb/100 EV, thats equally bad in variance terms as running -5bb/100 with a 5bb/100 EV, although the 2nd scenario leads to much more complaining
by JamesPenguin m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59383980#post59383980)
I'd also say that in absolute terms NL games are more variance heavy, I think a very bad player could more easily do well in a NLHE tourney than a mixed game tourney, but there's just fewer really bad players.
I played a lot of tourneys before the poker boom, when they were mostly limit games. And a lot since, when they are mostly NLH. The really awful players were much more likely to win a tournament back then in the limit events. If you play in your local poker room that has daily tournaments with fields of 25-100 players, the worst players would win every now and then in those limit events. These same worst regulars almost never win now that the events are all NLH.
by Greg (FossilMan) m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59384426#post59384426)
I played a lot of tourneys before the poker boom, when they were mostly limit games. And a lot since, when they are mostly NLH. The really awful players were much more likely to win a tournament back then in the limit events.If you play in your local poker room that has daily tournaments with fields of 25-100 players, the worst players would win every now and then in those li... See full post
I think that has more to do with limit games being easier and more restricted so "really bad" players are a lot worse in NL games because there's way more ways to screw up. So in this case a really bad player only has maybe -25% ROI in limit tourneys and -50% ROI in NL tourneys because he is simply "allowed" to make much bigger mistakes. and in that case a good player will win more and win more structurally in NL than in limit games. That doesnt have much to do with limit games having more variance though, they are simply easier to not be completely awful at so a bad player has fewer ways to donate his chips away. If that was the discussion I agree limit games have more swings, I think saying limit games have more variance is not a right way to approach the term variance though Besides the option to make a lot more mistakes in NLHE than in LHE, the overall skill level now is a lot higher so if someone is extremely bad nowadays he is worse compared to having the same skill level 30 years ago. Anyone can google starting hands and some basic strategy stuff where 30 years ago it was a much harder thing to do. And the best players are much better nowadays than back then. So a player who in 30years time didnt study any part of the game who had a -25% ROI in the limit games, will probably have -70% in current NLHE games, if not more. My point is that if a player has the same relative skill level but is still bad, he is better off playing a NL game where the variance (deviation from the EV) is higher, I dont see how 2 players with the same skill level, or with the same skill difference will have fewer swings in NLHE than in Limit holdem. Stating a game has more variance because generally speaking the skill difference is smaller is not the right way to approach the term variance imo.
James, you are on the right track. Despite what Greg says, Variance/Edge does NOT equal variance. It is some risk level that might be properly used to decide which games to play and what bankroll you need.