Yeah but that was not OP's question. It was does avoiding +EV increase or decrease variance.

Clearly situation dependant. If its a final table of WSOP where the pay jump is massively huge for your life/game stakes and you look set to have the jump nailed then yeah passing up a 51/49 +EV spot where you'd be all in is obv going to effect your long variance either way. You'd need to reach the FT and same situation again many times for the variance to balance out, and lets face that ain't going to happen.

If its a reg spot in a cash game or tourney that see all the time then youd be more inclined take the spot because you'll see it again many times around and the variance will balance itself out in favour of your +EV edge.

It really depends on how precisely you want to think about the situation. For example it's easy to come up with situations where 2 options have exactly the same EV but one of them is higher variance. Let's say you're facing an all-in and getting exactly the right price to call (for 0EV). The variance of calling is higher. Now what if the EV of calling is 1c and the pot $1000? It should be intuitively clear that calling will still increase your perceived variance (and if it's not, change the EV to 0.1c. Or 0.01. Or as low as you need to).

You can use the same technique to construct examples where passing up on high variance +EV spots will actually increase your perceived variance. Your mathematical variance will still decrease. I'm assuming you understand the difference between the two.

So the real question is where you should draw the line between the two. I think just trying to minimize your perceived variance (however you define it), is probably way to nitty. If you really wanted to you could figure out when you're being such a huge nit that you're actually defeating your original purpose and increasing your perceived variance. But it's more constructive just to try to understand how the tradeoff between the two works and chose according to your personal preferences.

This is a pretty deep thread.

What is meant by a "high variance spot"?

You will be making way more +EV plays when you play 6 rather than 24 tables. As to the profitability, it depends on the timeframe imo.


I think what OP means is a spot that is only marginally +EV and therefore leads to alot variance. Also, a spot where you put a lot of money in the pot. An example would be 4bet/calling 99 on the button vs a 3bet from a good player in the blinds (in a shorthanded online small/midstakes game).


edit: to answer the question, 1. theoretically decrease but impossible to say practically. depends on your bankroll (because you could go broke or have to move way down due to extreme swings) and how well your A-, B- and C-game is and how often you play those respectively.

2. im not sure about this but i think you theoretically should have more breakeven stretches or downswings because your winrate is lower, but again this is only theoretical. A quick search for "standard deviation winrate" turned up some threads where this was said.
The answer is closely related to q #1 because how well you react to (e.g.) losing several coinflips in a row defines both your winrate and the length/magnitude of your downswings and breakeven stretches ("hard" tilt obviously prolonges your downswings and therefore your b/e stretches).