To a winning player variance is the only reason we have a game to win at.
Additionally variance makes so many people tilt.Handle swings better than these people and embrace the variance.Your wallet will thank you.

fak variance man
fak that bad beats over and over again, im sick of it, 1outer on the river and fk slowrolled on top for a 12k pot

im done with this game, i play freaking better then all together and run so amazingly bad, its incredible.

stick to nlh
this game always favours donkey millionairs

variance is the enemy of the good players, because good players are most likely to make money in the long run, but variance can hit them hard and destroy their bankrolls, especially in a swingy game like PLO.

@borg
you wrong man, variance is only bad for good players, because the 0815 tourist or 0815 weekend player doesnt care about variance he comes twice a month to the casino loose a bunch and he is fine that, because he had a good time.

but the reg who grind everyday on this tables, who looses multiple times as big favourite against such donks, exactly this is what we call variance.

so variance is just bad thing for good regs

I already mentioned bankroll considerations and the fact there are likely spots where I can excersise skill in stead of being all in for marginal EV.

You could go on a +7bb/100 heater in a loose passive game which would contribute more variance to your results.

No one is capable of assessing the variance of a game in real time (more on that below).


I admit this could lower your variance, but I would think it is probably only relevant to 0 EV spots because it would seem rare to have positive EV situations that don't also contribute similarly to your variance.

This reduces your risk of ruin but doesn't necessarily reduce variance.

All of the things you mentioned here seem to be ways to control risk of ruin, but that doesn't necessarily mean controlling the variance of your results. I undrrstand variance can be used to evaluate risk, but again that is only on data that already exists (i.e. past results). There's many reasons why it's just not possible to control the variance of results in real time or in the future:

1. Depending on how much data you have, you likely don't have an accurate idea of your winrate so in general you won't know how much variance a single decision contributes to your results.

2. Your winrate is an influenced by a variety of factors (game type, player compositions, individual hand winrates, state of mind etc) and some of those may even be correlated with eachother or interact none of which you can truely assess in real time. This means it will be difficult for you to assess how a single decision will contribute to your winrate.

3. Poker is a game of chance. This is probably the biggest one. You can do everything right, get all your money in really well and lose thousands of hands in a row. It might be rare lookinh at if from an equity perspective but it's bound to happen if you play a lot of hands of poker. Look up something like runs calculator to see what I mean.

So again, it's somewhat pointless or meaningless to try to control varaince. It just doesn't help you in any real way because variance is just an artifact of hands you have already played.


You can have positive high variance swings. In fact it's probably how a lot of players became capitalized to play full time. Not that they aren't also good, but they probably had a few sessions of run-good to help make the transition.

The reason why variance sucks is if you're not well capitalized to play at your stakes, you could go broke before you can absorb a downswing. It also contributes a bunch of noise to your true winrate in the short term as well so it can be difficult

One final note I think everything you mentioned in your post is good advice for poker players, I just don't think it's relevant to controlling variance.

I agree varaince can destroy a bankroll, but it can also build one faster.variance itself is not necessarily a negative thing.

Also do you know why the tourist comes in and finds it fun? Because he wins once in awhile. Do you know why that is? Chance and positive variance. If the fish stop winning once in awhile the games dry up and it's just a bunch of grinders paying rake.

Its the incongruity between "liking your line" and posting your thread about quitting poker because you lost thus hand to a 2% hand of eastern european idiot that cause people to recommend you stop playing PLO.

wrong
i love variance specifically because some many people especially regs are entitled little bitches who can't handle swings.

and like i said already there would not be poker if not for variance.

bc of variance donks play and bc of variance people who would make the games worse often can't play the stakes i'm in or have to play scared.

if it wasn't for variance in poker i'd probably but some clown working in an office wearing a monkey suit.

cry all you want- nobody cares.
and nl sucks.

i dont know what sort of volume you play and how much work you put in per week/month.
but i just knew one thing if you would get in such good spots and in such good games as me, and get almost always get sucked out for over 1000bb in 5/5 10/10 games for the last 6 month, you would have a different opinion about variance.

i know i can cry, i can do whatever i want, nobody cares. i dont give a shi* if someone does or not.

i really dont wish you a downswing like me, but probably only then you will understand that variance is the enemy of a good player.

peace

Either the op and borg have a different mindset in their approach to the factors in a game that are out of the player’s control, or the OP is experiencing a rare but possible extended downswing. In the first scenario I agree with borg. In the second scenario I can empathize with OP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

-1

The dream can quickly become a nightmare.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

820 trials (Exhaustive)

board: T92

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
QdJd8h7h	37.44%	208	198
KcQsJh3c	62.56%	414	198

every hand i want to play from UTG i like to open the pot that was the main thing i wanted to say, and Im limping AAJT in very lag games and also open so Im think Im balanced there.

I dont know why people want to have such a big limping range UTG, especially in loose passive games.

looks like you someone that understands the game pretty well

Naked aces play better in a smaller field and lower spr so just limping any AAxx just seems to be a waste of money.

Having a face up range is also problematic, but the above is worse imho.

Any way, having a bigger limping range at loose/passive tables means you can play more hands profitably against worse competition because your initial investment is lower.

I sometimes play in games where raising UTG doesn't narrow the field at all and makes everyone think you have aces, which is probably a bad spot to raise with weak AAxx hands. I rarely raise in EP, but when I do, it's a mix of strong aces and hands that don't hate playing against likely aces in a 3bet multiway pot.

Limpy loose-passive tables where people play bad postflop with obvious ranges are my favorite table to print money at.

looks like you play alot multiway, in a game where preflop equitys are so near together, i dont like playing multiway pots and give the blinds with there trash hands a free flop.

i mean, im a action player, my thought process on this is if I have a hand thats worth limping in early position its worth a open too.
specially in loose passive tables where we can open and 4bet weak loose passive oppenents and play a hu pot with them.

i dont know probably this is a leak in my game that come from NL, where I also never limp any hand in early position

in the games where i play, everyone loves to limp, except couple of friends of mine.
What do we achieve when we limp UTG in loose passive games where I just knew some old guys are checking there double suited connected AA in their blinds.
And some also fold them to an 4bet, I have seen so many people folding AA preflop in PLO its incredible. or just call see the flop dont hit a set and fold to any action.

I mean i think playing PLO in the US and playing PLO in Europe must be 2 different worlds.
The field here probably softer, a week ago a man sat down with 10k in a live 5/5 game where he just staked of naked AAxx on a T98 rainbow board, where he hit running tens against the flopped nuts.
And he was like I have Aces i must call, other guy couldnt believe it.

I dont know, probably limping in the hope someone will overplay his hand might be a good strategy, but as i told in live games here in my town everyone loves limping and Im not a guy who wants to play flops 9ways.

I should note it may seem like I am advocating limping a lot but I am not. Just pointing some things out about different ways to think about poker hands.

Equity is a measure of winning at showdown. There's a lot that happens in between preflop and showdown.

Also equities will run close together whether you raise or not, but I get your point about allowing more players to see the flop for free.


That is probably fine as long as your hand selecting ok and play well post flop but logically there are certain hands that could be profitable when played for a limp and are not profitable when played for a raise simply due to the fact the raise costs more as an investment to see the remaining cards.

4-betting loose passive players seems bad unless you get them to tilt or something and they wildly open up their 3-betting range.




You get a cheaper price to realize a part of your showdown equity. Also if people are going to let you in the pot cheaply when they hold premium hands that seems like a good thing no?




Yea if you're not going to get a raise behind you limping to raise and lower spr isn't going to help because no one will open for you.

We are clearly different players. I'm not an action junkie, but I'm not a completely predictable nit. I will play big pots with a draw and I am willing to call a big bet with a hand that can only beat a bluff, but I am selective about when I do those things.

I was an adequate NL player, but I never really unlocked my potential because I was never comfortable iso-ing preflop, so I mostly played a never-iso style that did best at loose limpy tables. In PLO, where preflop equities run together, I don't get punished for playing tight-passive preflop because I am not giving that much up by folding and raising preflop often just increases variance without increasing EV. I also started out playing in loose, fixed-limit games, so I am very comfortable playing multi-way pots and weirdly uncomfortable playing heads-up pots.

So, what do we achieve by raising preflop in PLO? Sometimes, all we achieve is making the pot bigger. For an action player, that is sufficient reason enough. I personally don't care about big pots. Some people don't understand that I am indifferent, so they make mistakes against me by assuming I am afraid of big pots. Sometimes, the goal is to knock people out. That works better in hold em, but in PLO, most players are too optimistic with marginal hands. I kind of do want those players in the blinds to see the flop for free if they are bad because they will put in too much money with hands that I dominate if I play a pot with them.

At loose-passive tables, players often don't 3bet much, but they will still raise preflop, often making raises that are less than pot-sized because they want a pot that is a bit larger than a limped pot but they don't want something huge. When I do feel like knocking people out of the pot and I am in early position, I find that limping with the intention of re-raising does a better job. If no one raises, then they weren't going to 3bet me anyways. I do tend to have a tight image, so my EP raises get respect and if I do get 3bet, it is likely by an above average AAxx hand that is guaranteed to 5bet me if I 4bet light to get it heads up. So, I'm aware that I play the way I do in part because I have a tight, competent image and someone with an action player label should maybe play differently.

You may not be a guy who wants to play flops nine ways, but you should be able to recognize the flow of the game and understand when raising preflop means choosing to play a seven-way raised pot instead of a nine-way limped pot. For some hands, you are better off with the latter scenario. Many players have a preferred style which isn't completely horrible if they get a table that suits their style. The challenge is adjusting to different table conditions that won't necessarily let you play the way that you want.

yes but by raising, i give myself a oppurtunity, to 4bet isolate weak players and by weak players i mean who stack of to light and there hands are face up for me

i like big pots, where the spr is low and if i have a double suited rundown i love to get it in heads up against aaxx

most likely of my aggro playing style, im in a huge downswing at the moment, but i know i will get out of this.

plo is a high variance game and i dont like playing small limped pots in high variance games.
regs who are telling me the edge comes from lowering the variance and play small ball, im telling you the edge comes from isolating and playing agressive against weak players with there weak holdings.



in the casino where i play, there are like 60 plo players, they playing everyday every night and i know most of them and can almost perfectly adjust my playing style.
thats a edge for me.

When i have 2 nut flush draws and a gutter on the turn, i will always repot because
thats what GTO is telling me, to make maximum pressure and maximum fold equity and if the guy has it, we have alot of outs to get there.

so i like my gameplay but I also dont mind yours in very lag games, everybody has to find it out for himself, what makes him the maximum profit and give him maximum edge.

I play more smallball preflop not because I hate big pots but because I'd rather have the spr high, which means that reckless aggression is punished post-flop in a way that it isn't when the spr is low. It probably goes back to my limit hold em days, when I preferred to keep the pot smaller preflop so that loose players made mistakes post-flop instead of bloating the pot so that their mistakes might no longer be mistakes.

I'm fine playing with a good player with your style because we often end up carving up the table between us, but I probably have more consistent results because I don't tilt the way some players with your style do when confronted with a table that doesn't play the way you want. And I do tend to get underestimated when the table gets short.

Didn't you literally just say they don't 3bet without double suited aces?

This thread is insane.

Why do we want to make the pot bigger? It's not "being an action player", it's called wanting to win more money. You raise with hands that will likely make more money by raising than other options, often that means hands that have better equity or playability, or both.

re: not limping

Limping pre can be fine, don't be ridiculous. This is live poker. Just don't pick stupid hands and ranges to do it with.

yes these is true
but im fine that, because i know what they have, and if i 4ball to isolate they always just call because they know me that i wanna get in maximum money pre and i dont care if they have 60% equity pre.

if I hit my flop i make a lot of money, if i dont get the right flop i can bluff, and when i know the flop crushes their range, i just give up.
this was pretty profitable for me in the last years.

im very happy to 3-4 betting suited rundowns and A high blocker with a relative connectivity and suit

Sometimes, raising preflop just increases variance without increasing EV. I lean towards this being the case when you have a slight equity advantage but you are OOP. You realize less of your equity OOP vs in position, in part due to your opponent having increased fold equity. So, I've adapted a strategy of raising less often and not trying to push small preflop edges OOP, because those edges often aren't there.

4betting with an ace against someone who only 3bets with AAxx seems bad and a misapplication of blockers.