I may or may not.

My $/hr std dev is $92 (45bb). What's that a representation of? Low variance?

SD that high just means that you have had a few really big scores, or big losses.

Makes more sense that SD is skewed by big wins.

$1800/hour my std over 4k hour sample.

Ploploplo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using 2+2 Forums

Well above or just a bit? I have heard 100bb/hr as an upper cap, but wouldn't be shocked by 110

FWIW, my SD over 1150 tracked hours of 1/2 is $251.96, at 2/5 it's $446.33 over 609 hours.

Not sure any of this SD talk even matters btw. Just interests me for some reason lol.

Yeah, it doesn't really seem to have any correlation/effect on winning....I would think a losing player could/would have a high SD too?

Can't correlate it to winning really. It very roughly correlates to looseness/tightness but really hard to compare between rooms.

Its use is in calculating confidence intervals for your winrate or the range of money you can expect to make in a given period. The lower your number, the tighter those ranges.

Mine is about the same (as we discussed before )

No where near the cap (even for NLHE).

Obv all things being equal a smaller stdev is desirable, but there is no implication of WR from any stdev.

I play at the Treasury actually but don't think there's any substantial difference between that or Crown. Star I believe has the worst rake setup?

right now, Crown rake is worse, given they are taking an additional $3 per pot for their promotion.

If there is no correlation between WR and StDev, why is a smaller StDev more desirable?

Sincerely,

Stats Fish

Smaller stdv equals less risk. Less swings. Can get by on a smaller BR when moving up etc. Really isnt something you should concern yourself with though.


The cap of 100 was likely related to 2/5 now that I think about it. I don't have independent knowledge about it though. Higher stakes games should be much higher. Obviously plo is bonkers.

Even though high stdv exist across the skill spectrum, I would assume the very best players have a relatively high stdv compared to other regs, no?

Even in a 100bb cap game, there are players with stdev > 100 bb/hr. They may not even be winners in the game, just higher variance decision makers.

I have said before - the stdev debate does more harm than good for most people ITT (as others like t_roy pointed out, what is the point of the #?). It is nothing you should aim to "fix"... never should someone adjust strategy for stdev reasons. It is just an effect. Make EV decisions and let the rest fall in place.

However, stdev is a very useful number for analyzing BR and putting downswings in perspective - so you should learn what it means and how the math works. Without it, any "winrate" discussions are pretty pointless in context. Stdev also converges to true number much faster than WR so it is the one stat you have that means something accurate.

In game theory, yes. In practicality, no. The very best players are defined by winrate and not high stdv. e.g. you can have a higher stdv than another reg but have a lower winrate over a million hours.

The reason is because maximising winrate in live poker does not require high variance plays in general because most opponents aren't playing optimally. An exploitative strategy (and the most profitable one) will typically involve very little bluffing against a population who make way too many calling mistakes.

Bluffing is probably the biggest contributor to a high stdv and when the best strategy involves rarely bluffing, this means the best strategy is a lower stdv approach.

Ofc all this is completely dependent on the tendencies of our opponents. If we were in a game with perfect players, the correlatory stdv would be different to LLSNL in its current state.

On that note, if you have extreme outliers that are very rare, consider removing them before calculating your standard deviation.

It's a conflicting statement.

If theory holds true but doesn't happen in practice, it simply means that your execution is erred.

Then you do not agree with the theory that best players have higher stdev.

Well, it kind of does.

Take for example a table full of calling stations. What do you think is the best way to optimize WR in such scenario?

An exploitative strategy and one that maximize value are not the same. Certainly to max value, it has to be exploitative, but there are obviously different levels of exploitation.

To never or rarely bluff can be exploitative against majority of LLSNL population, but you are leaving a lot of value by rarely bluffing.

See above.

FWIW, it's pretty easy to lose a ton of hands when making +EV decisions. 55/45 is +EV, and yet you are losing 45 out of 100 times.

Way too vague.

Honestly - this debate is just circular anecdotal evidence. There is not near enough objective data to conclude what range of stdev exists in winning LLSNL poker players nor where the peak WR may fall.

Now for my anecdotal debate... thin value is going to up your variance quite significantly. (Before even considering bluffing). If you actually squeeze every dime of EV out of situations with loose passive players, you will have higher stdev than almost every poster ITT. If you do it right, you will also have a >>> WR.

Can't disagree.

Plus if you're playing in Maryland Live, you can probably achieve highest WR and have lower stdev than a smaller room.

Yeah - players then change their play against you when they perceive you to be that aggressive... which digs a deeper rabbit hole about max exploitation and EV dynamic.

So back to start - discussing stdev is pointless, however discussing WR without stdev #s is pointless too lol.

/thread - all pointless

I have no idea why mine is so high. I just filtered my 1/2 results for first 1000 hours, where I feel like my game was less bluffy than it is now and my $SD/hr was higher ($378/hr) at that point than now ($355/hr).

It could just be a function of player pool and my willingness to bomb turns when I'm confident villain(s) are on draws and their willingness to get in ~light. They ~never fold so that can create big chip swings at river. I dunno?

Maybe I'm more bluffy than I realize. I do have a "spaz shove" leak that shows up from time to time, and I am more willing to squeeze light than pretty much anybody in my pool.

That all being said, I've never really had a big downswing at 1/2. My graph is a steady climb (1/3 is where I've had the gross downswing).

My biggest day at 1/2 was +1110, my worst day was -$1500. But those are definitely outliers. I have a lot of -$200 days, and a lot of +400 days.

Ironically(?) my $SD/hr at 1/3 is more in line with the norm at $218.49.

Bluffs that work are the lowest stdev result