the worst thing about poker to me is variance. yes i know its why we can make money at poker but not at chess etc, i understand the theoreticals and i understand it is definitely necessary.

my question is: what % of your hourly would you give up for zero variance

so for example; a pixie gives you a magic hand chart that guarantees half your winrate but absolutely zero variance. you can't exploit it by then playing 56 tables or something, the chart would know, its magic!. you just plod along as usual but have zero variance. if your hourly was $200, its now always $100, instead of +/- $5k/hour.

would you accept.

if not, what % would you accept at.


i'm thinking that both good and bad variance causes me to play alot less hours than i would like. bad leaves me tilted and i usually think it sensible to stop playing. good variance leaves a strong temptation to quit my session and go to the pub or something. i'm sure this rings true for most other regs.

i think there is a theoretical breakeven point just in pure $$EV, but also you might go below that for a more stable stressfree lifestyle.

pretty sure this has been done before. im not sure what % i would give up but it would definitely be significant portion like 20-40% or something. this would also be nice b/c you would know for certain what you win(loss)rate is

This is very true for me too. I think the mere thought of variance makes me play alot less than I should. I'd seriously give up 40% fo my WR to be variance free, eventhough that sounds ridiculously high.

i'd like somethin in between. doesn't really bother me much to lose 7bi a session.
but i'd sure run across the world if it could prevent me from another 200k hands BE stretch.................

Easily would give up half for this reason.
With no variance/stress/tilt I would play 60-80 hours a week pretty happily and I'd imagine I could play a lot more tables to so I could get in way more than double the hands I get in now. Not to mention those big downswings that happen less often where I reqiure an extended break to get out of the rut of the permanent semi-tilted state meaning even more time lost that could have been spent earning money if not for tilt.

find out how you are happy with, become a coach

playing more tables is not in the terms of the question, but yeah playing more hours would be alot easier, i think that is where you could easily set a breakeven point, obviously 50% give up of winrate and you have to work 2x as hard to make the same, so i'd say the breakeven point would be about 66% or so.

but i think i might take an even worse offer for the lack of stress, i think zero stress in your job would be very beneficial to your health and worth a decent amount of money.

just think of all the money you have wasted when tilted, i know i go on tilt spending sprees sometimes, i have a friend who has a penchant for robotic dinosaurs when tilted which aren't cheap

yeah coaching is definitely a good idea for avoiding variance. not sure how easy it would be to work alot of hours at, with all the down time. like if you worked 40 hours, you probably get paid for 30.

I would give up <4%. Variance is a huge part of the fun for me. This **** would just feel like a 9-5 to me if everyday I woke up and made exactly the same amount

i'm really surprised that someone successful at poker would give up as much as 40% of their ev to get rid of variance...like honestly i think i'd maybe give up 2% but if this had implications on how the game played out i'd probably just not give up anything. i'd even expect a handful of [smart] ppl to be willing to pay a few percent to keep it.

0%

keep 200 BI bankroll and you won't care about variance

but I don't keep those...... so I'd happily give up 30% I guess

less than 10%. Maybe less than 5.

Gamble gamble, I hate and love variance.

To answer the question, I would give up 0%. Poker might be crap when you lose, but it would be so boring if everyday was the same.