Being playing PLO2 ($0.01/$0.02) in pokerstars since some time...
Im losing lots of hands that are 65, 70, 80, and 90% favorite. Some should be normal, but I feel im losing more than I should. Since two months ago i have played 85 k hands.

Usually when i lose big (-5 to -10 buy ins), the variance looks bigger (on the bad end). Some of the statistics are:

Overall:
My C won: -$51.49
My C All In Adj: $5.74

3 Bet Pots:
My C won: -$99.15
My C All In Adj: -$24.69

And the variance should be worse than it shows overall. Thats not counting the hands when I am practically all in in the turn and the Villain gets his card on the river and I am forced to call because of the big pot.

want to hear if this type of variance is normal or im running pretty bad.

You're are running pretty bad. Yes, its normal.

On topic question, somewhat.
With variance been much greater in PLO than NLHE, how do you guys stop yourselves from going busto? I'm using a 40 - 50 BI rule at this point, leaning towards 40 mostly although had a bad day of run bad, so lost a bit of confidence right at this moment.

Personally I try to stop playing in a session when I loss 5 BI. Sometimes 10 BI. Definitively not losing more than 10 BI in a day. That's how I manage my losses.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Omaha, where the only guarantee, is that there are no guarantees!

It will eventually even out, the problem is, that no one can predict how long that will take. Could be 100K hands for some, could be 500K for you.

Just keep playing as close to your A game as possible and hopefully things will fall into place sooner than later.

The best way to manage losses in poker is and always has been to work on your game and increase your winrate.

BRM in some form is obv necessary and stop loss strategies can be fine. But increasing your WR is the most effective. 10bb winners just have way less 50 BI downers than 2bb winners

Thanks Captain obvious

Pretty sure I understand your logic in this statement, but the overall concept that might be perceived by some seems flawed.

Your bb / 100 has nothing to do with the "potential" number of 50BI downswings you might have over the course of your career. You can play perfect poker and still get crushed by variance.

There is obviously a correlation between bb / 100 and overall winnings, but whether or not you win X amount / 100 doesn't change the potential for variance and 50 buyin downswings.

Players who operate at 10bb / 100 may have fewer downswings simply due to the fact that they have more control over their games, better game selection and a better overall skill. As mentioned by Oink, its the hard work that they have put into to getting better that has contributed to their ability to circumvent some of the massive downswings that others experience. It is not a guarantee that they won't have a huge downer, they may just be more adept to adjusting to it and making sure it doesn't spiral out of control.

Seems like you´re running bad while playing terrible. Winning 300bb in All-in EV over 85.000 hands at PLO2 is god awful (0,35bb/100, come on lol). It´s true that you´re running bad, but I´ve seen worse. The chances of running the way you did are something like 20-25 % (Standard deviation 150bb/100).

Edit to add: Jeeeeeez at those stats concerning 3-bet pots. I just looked up my database and I´m winning something like 250evBB/100 in those. How can your All-in Adj. win rate be negative over such a big sample?

No!

It does reduce both number of downswings and biggest downswing.

Variance stays the same more or less so you could just as likely run 50bi under EV as with a lower wr.

oink is obv right, let´s be real, most players don´t need a bankroll, they need a budget.

That's pretty much what I was alluding too.

Well then explain please how a higher win rate (without taking into account playing better cards, position, table selecting, overall game plan, player ability etc) can affect variance (which doesn't care whether you are a winning or losing player, and just comes about as natural part of the game) thereby reducing your POTENTIAL for a downswing of a massive scale.

Seriously?

http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

It's basic math.

Play around with this part of 'DOPE.





Look at how many fewer big downswings the 10 big blind (that's what they mean) per 100 winner has. Generate your own if one trial isn't enough for you.

You've missed my point.

I'm not debating the math, I was simply trying to point out to players that it is the hard work that goes into getting that win rate, that puts you in the position to avoid the big downswings, not just the number of bb / 100.

Let me try to simplify it because I like asterisks:
You can't keep a high win rate if you play like sh*t
You can't avoid big downswings if you play like sh*t
Getting to that high win rate and keeping it, probably means you aren't playing like sh*t
Therefore reducing the downswings in your poker career can be potentially attributed to not playing like sh*t
Which in turn will boost your win rate, because you're not playing like sh*t

smiley face

Yeah, like Rey says. Its basic math.

The volatility around the trend is the same. However the 10bb winner has a steeper trend than the 2bb winner, thus reducing the risk og a downswing of x BI's.

A 10bb/100 winner with a 150bb/100 std dev basically never has +100 BI downers. A 2bb/100 winner with the same std dev will experience plenty of those.

Edit: I think its a case of semantics and we dont really disagree as much as we misunderstand each other. I am not sure we agree on the definition of a downswing?

I wasn't debating the math.

Just a misunderstanding.

I was trying to clarify to some of the people who don't understand life in general, that it is not the win rate number that contributes to the lack of downswings, its the ability of the player who got that high win rate.

Higher win rate should equal higher skill
A higher skilled player should be able to avoid the downswings that lesser skilled players experience on the regular.

Maybe I'm still wrong, but that's what I was trying to say.

This brings to mind a related issue, or perhaps it's exactly the issue you've all been discussing...

Everyone knows that the variance in Omaha is higher than the variance in NLHE. But I stumbled upon a Phil Galfond interview from 2010 where he's discussing his reasoning for focusing on Omaha. At the time he felt his edge in PLO was similar to his edge in NLHE, but his edge materialized faster in PLO; consistently far larger pot sizes meant his edge materialized into winnings at a much faster rate... and that is obviously still within the context of the increased variance.

So I guess my point is, that regardless of the variance, your edge/win rate is what ultimately dictates your bottom line (drawdowns included). If you're handily beating the game in a vacuum, your down swings and up swings will still be violent, but the latter far more so than the former.

I bring this up because over the past few years I have transitioned to almost exclusively PLO. I'm better at the game. Yes, the nasty runs can be pretty brutal at times, but as long as I'm playing games with multiple mistake prone players, my downswings are moderate compared to my NLHE downswings, where those mistake prone players are harder to find.

I have more to say on this but I'll stop here and see if anyone thinks I'm missing something here.

Disclaimer: I play 50plo across multiple sites, don't use a hud(usually), and have only played about 120k hands in the past 1.5 yrs-

I think this is not variance. Am i wrong?

yep , OP probably is doing lot of mistakes which is normal I guess, but he's probably running bad as well, at 2plo this can't be variance only ... regular tables up to 10plo are infested with fun players , you can get tables with like 4 nice spots ... work on your game

Just your usual 22 stack downer followed by a 17 stack upper in one session. It's truly sick what PLO variance can do to you through out a day