i suppose that your style of play influences the standard deviation quite a bit (correct me if im wrong),
but i would like to get some rough estimates about all the differnt games.

i am mainly interested the following at 6-max (50-200$ tables if it matters):

NLHE (about 80bb/100 i read, while bb is bigblind)

PLO (should be higher than 80bb, but how much?)


in BigBets :

2-7 TD

STUD

STUD8

RAZZ

LO8

LHE


if you play any other game and know your rough standard deviation, please post it in here, too.
im curious about all of them, and it will surely be interesting and helpful for all of us.


as you may already recognized i play 8-game, and would love to know the standard deviation for each game,
even if it isnt that helpfull in the mix at the first sight.

For limit games I think it goes pretty much
stud > HE > lo8 > stud8 > razz
Actual numbers probably aren't that interesting. Stud is probably on the order of 20BB/100 and razz maybe 15-16BB/100 so there isn't actually THAT much difference between them. If your opposition is bad in a very particular way then razz variance might go as low as 12-13BB/100.

oh wow, i should`ve asked earlier, thank you very much rusty

I'm curious what Rusty has based that ranking on? I'd naturally think split pot games would have the lowest variance, since far less often will you be winning or losing entire pots.

My own experience and database, although I think I might be over-estimating razz's variance. With razz, it *really* depends on your opponents. On the opponents you have the most edge over, your variance can be quite high - as an experiment once I played several thousand hands of play money razz. My stdev was like 22-25bb/100, but I was winning at a rate so large (like 12 or 13BB/100) that it was like no variance at all.

Regarding split pot games, I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding. For one thing, hands go to showdown WAY more. That may be the cause of it. I don't have my database on hand but if I remember when I get home I can give some solid numbers.

that is true for fullring, i remember reading jeff hwang (these omaha books),
who said fullring omaha8 limit can be played with 130-200BB if your opponents arent playing near to optimal.
but 6 max its just what rusty said, way more thinner value bets and call downs,
which end up in higher variance.
i have played lots LO8 of 1/2 and 2/4$ 6max, 2 years ago on FT.
its really swingy vs solid aggressiv opponents.
there are many factors to standard variance, as fare as i can think,
but there must obv be a rough arithmetic average in every variant,
that gives us a chance to compare the differnt games.



edit:
if we get a standard deviation for most of the games and compare it with what we already know/heard about bankrollmanagment of all the games, including the missing ones, we can estimate the std.-dvt. of the missing games.
of course there are too many factors to call it accurate, but the more info we put in here, the more precise it gets.the STUD-games are tricky, because there are no 6max STUD-tables.

Yes, I've thought about it more, and I think it depends on a lot of factors. I'm pretty sure my stud-8 game is lower variance than most, since I'm a bit of a nit. But at many tables, players find lots of reasons to chase in O-8 and stud-8, so I guess you can have a lot of big multiway pots where everyone has some shot to win, which can create bigger variance. Razz should have lower variance because pots are more often heads up except against terrible players, and the weaker board rarely raises the stronger board so you don't get huge pots so often. I just find playing razz that people often chase and donk out on me on 7th , though they normally have odds, or almost have odds, to chase correctly.

i think that the std.-dvt. of LO8 has a big differnce between 9/10max and 6max,
STUD8 and STUD have bigger diff in their variance 8max to 6max than RAZZ does.

i think the limit games are in the following order (from high to low stanard deviation):

2-7 is obv the limit-game with the biggest swings. it has lots of automatic calls, and very small edges

STUD/LHE =stud has one more bigbet-street and limit holdem all the thin valuebets/calls)

LO8 (is way more swingy than 9/10max)

STUD8 = the high-hands do play better HU, which increases the showdown-rate vs lows)

RAZZ = i thought its be at one step with STUD8, but what you said made me clearly put it on the last spot of the list, the bricks really keep your pots small, but , i for example, always raise my 6 low vs a 7 low that completed in front of me, then call 4th under many circumstances even when i brick, which should be correct as far as i know.
although the bring-in with around 30% is smaller than at straight RAZZ-tables where its 50%,
and there are 2 antes less than at 8max obv. but that is the same for all the STUD-games in the mix.






the resaon why made this thread is that i am thinking about either playing shots at 2/4$ 8-GAME
with 10-15 bigbets auto-reload, which would mean a 40-60$ stack minimum at 2/4$ (NL/PLO100),
or even going away from fullstack-buy-ins and doing this regulary.
i just wonder if i lose too much of an edge, my NLHE is avg but my PLO is quite good.
i just stronlgy feel that i can beat 2/4$ already but i will just have a roll of about 1500$ when i restart the grind.

I think most players do that, but I don't think that is always correct. if you 3bet on third, the pot becomes so big that everyone is playing correctly to chase no matter what (you should call even if you brick and your opponent catches good). So if you bloat the pot, there's no skill involved in the game until at least fifth street, and it becomes pretty much bingo. If you don't 3bet, the pot is normally small enough that you (or your opponent) don't have odds to chase down the better hand. So in the normal-sized pot, some skill actually comes into play - your opponent might make a mistake to chase you down when you catch good, and you can correctly fold if you brick.

There are certainly good reasons to 3bet a 6 against someone with a 7 upcard - if there are 7s or 8s behind you that you need out of the hand, say, then 3betting is almost mandatory. And if there's reason to think the player completing the 7 doesn't have three low to a 7, then 3betting is almost certainly good, since you often have a big edge if called. But if you have 653 against 74A on third, your edge is really only marginal. Against good players I'd push those marginal edges, because that's the only way I might beat them, but against bad players, I wouldn't - I'll let myself make better decisions than them on the later streets.

But I'm sure someone better than me will disagree.

Your general description there is fine - raises in razz tend to be functional on 3rd as opposed to for value, that is, you raise if doing so is likely to have a good effect, not because you have an equity edge. You want to make someone fold for 2 who might call for 1, or misrepresent your hand, or sometimes you want to trap a bad upcard between you and another good upcard (which is one of the few pure value scenarios on 3rd in razz)

Pretty much any 3-card 8 or better have very similar equities on 3rd st unless dead cards greatly favor one player over the other.

lets think of an 8-game table with semi-decent players where i can win 2-4BB/100.
like rusty said, we have std.-dev. of ~20BB in STUD and ~16BB in RAZZ.
im pretty sure that STUD8 played correctly at 6max with semi-decent opponents should have lower std.-dev than STUD and higher than RAZZ.

first results ($ at a 100$ 8-game table):

STUD = ~20BB/100 hands (80$)

STUD8 = ~18BB/100 hands (72$)

RAZZ = ~16BB /100 hands (64$)

NLHE = ~80bb / 100 hands (80$)
__________________________________________________ __________
LHE = not significantly higher than STUD i think, anybody know?

LO8 = can get really swingy 6max, but one betting round less than studgames.

2-7 TD= damn it, this is by far the highest of all limit-variants.

PLO = higher than NLHE, but how much?


i will soon ask in the specific forums. is there still an active limit holdem forum?
the other games wont be the problem, i guess.

gonna take a shower now and start 3-4 threads to feed this one with info.

"For standard deviation, the biggest factors by far are VP$IP and PFR."
thats what "tringlomane" wrote in other poker (2-7td).

ill soon have the average 2-7 std.-dev. and i already made a thread in the omaha 8 forum.




edit:
opened 4 threads in the specific forums, 2-7 already got answerd, its around 20BB/100.
waiting for the omaha8-crew and the LHE-players.
but im most curious what the PLO-fraction will have to add, i guess its at least 50% higher than NLHE.
will put the info together over the next few days.

I play a lot of LHE and I'd say the std dev is a fair amount higher than stud. maybe in the 22-24 BB/100 range. The other games seem pretty accurate tho I dont know much about 2-7 or PLO.

Also, you might want to gather some info about each game for 2-4 handed play. I'm sure you will run into plenty of short handed games on a 6-handed table

edit: After reading some threads by players who seem knowledgeable, they put LHE around 17BB/100. Maybe I play a lot of loose aggressive games cause I feel like it should be higher. Either way, thats my 2 cents

19BB/100 seems to be the average at LHE 6max 5-6handed in my LHE-thread yet.

here is the link to my thread in LHE forum:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/22...-6max-1120208/


i already have lots of info from the PLO forum, 120-190bb/100 covers all fullstack players yet.
i will wait a few more days to get a better picture.
although, i do not yet have any info about limit omaha8.

i do not intend to look for the std.-dev. with 2-4 players.
im quite sure i wont get any info about the three STUD-variants (and LO8 ?),
and you must keep in mind that the less players (factors) there are,
the less precise the results will be.
its already a bit vague at 6max compared to fullring,
because at 8-10 player tables you have to play less than, lets say ~25% of hands to seriously compete,
which results in way more precise numbers. (more factors, each with a shallower range, means less VPIP and AGF)
the main part of the standard-deviation, beside the game itself, is how loose and aggressiv the it plays, and while you can play lots of styles shorthanded you wont get away with playing 38/28/4 at a fullring-table.

STUD has one more BigBet-street and i think Rustys announcement with 20BB is fine,
i think it might be 2-3BB higher at 5-6 handed compared to 7-8 handed,
which was most likely the firm basis for his post.

btw, 25BB is the highest i have read about the limit games yet,
and that was at 2-7 tripledraw.


atm this is really pure theory, when i play 8-game there are usually lots of players who are really bad/nitty during some of the games, which lowers the std.-dev. somehow.
but i think it makes sense to collect all this data from players who play a single game straight,
because as soon as you get to higher stakes, there will be much less players who have big leaks or nit it up.
there, the collected deviations will be more accurate.