This is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about bad variance. I know that the definition police will probably issue me a citation for using the word in a way inconsistent with it's technical definition. But apparently, there are people out there who know what I'm talking about.

I've noticed that as I become more aggressive, which is something that I set out as a goal last year, the swings get bigger. For example, last night, I made a really excellent call with an over pair vs. a top pair with an overcard kicker and a flush draw. The guy had 14 outs on the river card and hit. I was really proud of myself for making that read and getting the money in with the best of it. But losing a $1200 pot on a suckout really blows. And if that sort of crap happens to you session after session, you start wondering if you're doing it right. And each hand is an independent trial, so there's a roulette quality that beats can happen again and again and again relentlessly. I know people out there have dealt with this since time immemorial, so there has to be a system.

I think I'll make a box with four quadrants and put tick marks in it every session for the kind of beats and breaks I get, tally them up good minus bad and give it an numerical rating which tells me objectively how many hands I run good or bad in.

You may want to tighten up your definition of suckout though. My example was a true suckout. Another one is a K48 flop, I have pocket 4s and get it all in against K9. It comes K9. That was twoo weeks ago. Another was QQ vs. AQ preflop, all in, board comes K64JT. That was last week. For me 3 outs or less is a true suckout, the rest are favorites that I lost. I mean, I'm not in the practice of getting it in bad, so whenever I lose a pot, I'm usually the favorite, or the pot odds give me +EV.

The example you gave has too many outs to be a suckout, although you were a favorite. I'm going to lose favorites, so are you.

I've adjusted and use the small hand, small pot, big hand, big pot rule. So on my favorites, but not monsters, I use pot control. This helps control the swings better and in a sense assigns a range of $$$ that I'm willing to risk in that situation. I'd rather keep my stack intact for when I have the best of it, not being nitty by any means, but not risking it on a flip or even a 60/40 favorite, when I'll get much better odds maybe just 3 hands later.

For me, its losing my Monsters that is bothering me. Only because I have a short roll right now, and they are big setbacks when they happen in a row. I will get it in with my monsters, when a guy has 1 to 3 outs, and when they get there, that's what I want to track. I want to look at this stat and say wow, you just got a guy to put his whole stack in with only a 10% chance of winning. Well played sir. This keeps my confidence up even when the bankroll goes down.

I know the 'long term' definitely owes me some pots right now! LOL

Coolers aren't variance?

Variance correlates with aggressiveness quite well. Nits will always have lower SDs than LAGs.

As for tracking more things, like others have said, session in/outs can help you calculate your SD. And then estimating your equities when you are all-in (or precisely calculating it when your opponent tables his/her cards) will give you a good opportunity to estimate your all-in EV WR so you can compare it to your actual WR. But remember all-in EV isn't the be all end all of variance adjustment. It doesn't consider things like preflop hand distribution, or non-showdown wins/losses, etc.

@ tringlomane - Granted, some hands play themselves. But, it comes to bear, so coolers can't really be ignored if you're looking for a complete picture. I have always considered getting coolered to be "unlucky."

I try to play just on the loose side of the TAG line. So, I think of it as slightly loose and aggressive. All the same, when trying to come up with an objective numerical value of run good/run bad, I can only track events that I know all the variables in. In events like non-showdowns, the variables stack up so fast that it quickly creates a mountain of analysis. Using only events where all variables are known keeps things simple. I may not know the entire picture, but I get the most relevant details.

Just had an 18 buyin upswing come to an end last night, when I lost less than one buyin. Variance is a two-way street, which was my original point when I said there's no point in trying to track it. And it doesn't sound like anyone ITT is interested in tracking when variance works in their favor. If 2 + 2 wasn't so user-unfriendly, I'd post pics of my Poker Journal charts. I have over 2,000 hours of 2/5 logged, and when you look at the chart, you'd be pretty surprised at what you saw. For example, in 2011, I was break-even for four months, and then over the next three months, my win rate was about 19 BB/hr.

.

Hey I asked you in another thread what you're Hourly rate was after 2000 hrs and how many months did 2000 hours take. I've only got 300 hours in and wondering what a good hourly rate is for 2/5.

Thanks!

I honestly doubt he could tell you that with any great degree of certainty. Like most things in the world, the answer is going to depend. I'm sure he has a number of some kind over 2000 hours. But, if he hasn't improved after that many hours at the table, something is wrong. Not only that, but you can only play 25-30 hands per hour live, so 2000 hours is only 50-60K hands. That's hardly enough to establish true win rate. So, it is literally going to take years of play to establish any kind of real expected value, and the most recent months of data are going to be the most relevant, and would need to be weighted in the analysis. To give you an idea of the time scales we're talking about, a full time employee is budgeted for 2080 man-hours in one year. If you really push it hard, you might get 3000 hours in at the game in one year.

The right mindset is to focus on improving your game and putting in the time and not worry about your win rate.

Do you think there is a correlation between showdowns and variance? It seems like they would be positively correlated if the last bet was on the turn or sooner (probably an all-in), but negatively if it was the river. Assuming your value betting and not getting value bet, and your a competent player. Would this also affect your hourly?

I haven't a clue how to figure this out, but if you were on a long downswing, I know it's a cardinal rule not to switch your play, switch it up to more TAGgy and showdown less? I think by switching your play to another profitable playing style would help?

Just a hunch but I would assume Midnight Cowboy is more TAG and ExSub is more LAG. Am I right?