There is no variance in Poker!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,109
I've seen a lot of discussion on variance lately, so I've decided to give my alternative perspective on it.
My controversial opinion: There is WAY less variance in poker than people think. Humans have selective memory which makes everyone feel way unluckier than they actually are (including me), combined with high ego that makes regs feel entitled to win.
When discussing variance, people often mention standard deviation as a proof of how high it is, so I'll point out here why I think std dev is an inaccurate and flawed stat.
Imagine that we are playing a unique form of poker in which there is truly zero variance (Std dev = 0). We can call this "Zero-Poker".
We play 10 hands of live "Zero-Poker" and win with 10bb/100 win rate in every single hand at the table. Std dev = 0.
However, what happens when a player at the table leaves and is then replaced by a new player? Or if a player changes their strategy?
Our win rate changes! And for the session, our Std dev is now shown as more than 0!
Now, imagine we're 10 tabling online Zero-Poker, with different people at every table that keep adjusting to each other. What do you think our graph would look like? At one table we'd be winning 15bb/100, at another we'd be losing 15bb/100... Our graph would appear to have a ton of variance. Our std dev would be shown as really high, even though we are playing a form of poker that literally has no variance!
Let's say a reg plays this game for 4 months and gets these results:
Month 1: +$1400
Month 2: +$1600
Month 3: +$1000
Month 4: -$1200
His conclusion would probably be that the variance in Zero-Poker is very high and he is just on a huge downswing, while the reality is, he's probably losing money because the pool has changed, improved or has leaks that just happen to exploit his tendencies.
I think that this scenario parallels what happens to many regs as they play actual poker. They make profit for few months in a row and start feel entitled to win. So when they all of a sudden lose, they automatically attribute it to variance.
I really think that variance just isn't all that insane. If you keep losing money for tens of thousands of hands, odds are, you're getting outplayed in one way or another. Making consistent profit is about having positive win rate vs every player in the pool. If you are crushing half of the players and getting crushed by the other half, your graph will be all over the place. While if you have a slightly positive win rate vs every single player in the pool, your graph will be a straight line.
In other words - exploitative strategies lessen the downswings even if your std dev is the same.
Last edited by ZKesic; 04-01-2024 at 12:50 PM.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 7,511
In variance free poker you would just get ev of your strategy, so there would be no confusion about getting unlucky. If you lose money in that format you would know your strategy was inferior and you would know exactly where you won where you lost.
Ofc there is no variance free measurement and there is no variance free game, but in poker you have additional variance in card distributions.
You are right that as your WR (and sample size) goes up effect of variance goes down.
Join Date: Oct 2023
Posts: 672
I think your opinion is influenced a lot from having high volume and win rate, the high roller MTT guys would probably disagree.
If you’re playing public $10/20 live, a lot of what determines if you win in a given month is whether a whale shows up and where they sit. I’d argue that’s part of poker and part of variance. You can run good by coolering regs, winning flips, or getting in spots with maniacs.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,778
Join Date: Dec 2022
Posts: 248
I honestly believe by exploiting against certain player profiles in soft 1/3 games you can basically win without ever going on a traditional downswing, online this is just not the case
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 623
Hidden in this post is the reason why poker is still alive. You seem like a decently intelligent person who spent some time considering some accurate facts and put them together to come up with a theory that is 100% incorrect lol
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8,596
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguyhere
Check the date lol
Ahhhh damn lmao
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3,585
I am hereby invoicing ZKesic 0.077649 DOGE for the time it took to read this useless diatribe. And I suggest any other poor souls who were lured in this far out beyond the original gag’s sell-by-date do the same to teach him a lesson. We shouldn’t stand for this as a community.
Warn the others before it's too late. Do NOT bump the thread
