hahhahahahahahah..such a nit

If winrates are higher, the variance has to be lower.

I can envision a lot of situations where this doesnt hold true but it is late I could be wrong.

This is very wrong. shoving draws increases variance, but can be used very profitably

This is very true, if earnings are measured per number of tourneys. Per hour, you are right.

Well i know i'll never go busto.

I'm not so sure about you.

how many buyins to you play with?
how many times have you gone broke?

There is nothing wrong with taking a shot and moving down, if you have the discipline to do so.

Uh, you know we're talking about HUSNGS, right? Not cash games?

Your overall winrate is the only thing that has any impact on variance.

Shoving draws can certainly change your winrate (probably lowering it against many types of opponents, and therefore increasing variance), but if your winrate is higher, then your overall variance *has* to be lower.

with a 50 buyin rule i would NEVER go broke.

if u say u lost 13 in a row and that was the worst streak ever, then 50 buyins is obviously enough. the only reason i can see u having a 100 is for the psyhcological reasons, other than that, 100 buy-ins is OVER kill

Yeah i've thought about doing the 50.... and i do realize that i'm probably missing out on some money.

13 was by far the worst...
other than that i think 8 was the worst losing streak and i've played around 3000 hu sit n gos.

I also have no idea how soon i should move up to 100s after i play my 1000 50s... ive thought about just cashing out every month.... and then repeating that for a few months.

Yeah, 100 seems super-extra-nitty to me, but I don't suppose that will surprise anybody around here, since I think even 30-40 is pretty nitty for anybody who's actually trying to build a roll, as opposed to living off one.



Of course, like I said, if the overall winrate is lower at PLO8 (and I could really see it going either way due to the conflicting factors of an overall higher variance game, and the fact that the playerbase is probably more clueless), then it does make sense to try to stay a little deeper.

I would also guess that the problems finding opponents as you move up are MUCH worse than NLHE, so that would be another reason to not be in a hurry to move up.

You might not be missing out on a bunch of money right now, since it's probably pretty hard to find $100 PLO8 opponents, but if you played a 100 buyin rule up to the $50s, you probably missed out on a TON of money. Like a really super-disgusting amount.

Of course, all that would have meant is that you would have got to where you are now faster, with less experience, and still be looking at moving up to a level where I can't believe there are very many people playing.

Everybody's goals are different, and if 100 buyins doesn't impact your goals, then have at it.

On the other hand, making +EV decisions should be a goal for *every* poker player. And waiting for 100 is very much a -EV decision.

I always thought PLO8 was lower variance than NLHE due to the split pot nature of the game.

btw, PLO8killa, is your screenname tatta?

I know limit omaha8 is lower variance, but I'm not sure about pot-limit.

Pot-limit omaha high is for sure higher variance than NLHE, despite the fact that the bets are limited to pot.

On the one hand, there is the split, which lowers variance, but on the other, there's the fact that it's omaha, and on average, you're going to be putting lots more chips in as a much smaller favorite than you would in HE.

I know which factor wins in limit O8. I'm not sure about pot limit.

cashing out every month is a good plan, and im not bashing ur 100 buyin rule, although im sure its extremely nitty. and if ur good 50 buyins is more than enough to never go busto

i will not be playing for a living very soon, so taking shots/going bust/moving up and down are all just part of how i play