How the hell does variance vary over time?

why need regs when you can have your own bots? cant figure them out from players anyway nowadays, people play like bots with all those multitabling and bots getting better every day and geting their game mixed up here and there.
you know, when you have news like "bots stolen 1-2 mill from poker economy" any ceo douchebag would instantly think of getting their own. And all those regulators can be paid to keep their mouth shut. World crisis made integrity a curse word.
if you are a winning player, they can just wait till you make enough rake, then they can just turn on the doomswitch and boom, you are gone.

So poker needs to be more stressful, swingy and confusing. Hmm ok wp.

Believe it or not,it does.

In todays games edges are smaller,in many games tiny or even non existent.
This could create huge swings.

Secondly,the game types offered today are mostly fast poker types like zoom,spins,hypers,turbos...etc.
This again increases your variance.

Basically they (not just PS,but they are the flagship of this) are turning poker from a skill game,to a high variance casino game,which is unbeatable for anyone except the best 0,0000001% of players and some sunrunner fish who hits a milly or smthing.

The REG isn't a role model any more,isn't their friend any more.It is their ENEMY.
And they do whatever they can to wipe out that enemy completely.

Just like any other casino game.
It isn't +EV for them if U have an edge on other customers.
Rake is not enough,it never was.
Greed hit the fan.

For the most part this is true.

They do need regs to have a variety of cash games running, bigger prize pools for tourney and sit and goes to run quickly. So I'm sure its not a big deal to have some regs that win a little hear and there. Its just the regs that are able to really crush that are the problem. (or cause them to make less money)

Oh look, it is this thread again

I think this is not meaningfully correct. Variance has a specific mathematical meaning, which you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance

I think that you will find that variance is a function of payout structure, not of "fast poker types".

For example, a hyper-turbo with a winner-takes-all payout structure would have more variance than a hyper-turbo with a double-or-nothing payout structure.

Similarly, I suspect that you'd find that after you adjust for the differing players (and therefore pot sizes) a hand of Zoom poker would have the same variance as a hand of non-Zoom poker.

I also think that this is very much very wrong.

Yea,sure.

Do you know what I think?
That a PokerStars employee telling me that my thinking is wrong,has not much credit.
I could start arguing about this with you,and I would win with solid reasoning behind it,but to be honest with you,I couldn't care less what you 'think'.

Meh, with less and less people being able to make money there's gonna be less and less people to look up to which keeps the dream of making some money from poker alive. Once people realize it's kinda a futile effort.... well wtf is the point then? Might as well play the lotto or go gamble on some other crazy games and there are plenty of venues for that both live and online. I think Stars really shot themselves in the foot with the VIP value loss as well as completely ****ting on their own brand/reputation, and they have considerably **** on themselves trying to up the rake last year and now with VIP reductions. Will be fun to see them slide into a lesser spot in the lineup of poker rooms.


RIP Pokerstars, you were awesome!!

Ya but the more hands you play in an hour the more decisions you have to make and the more those quality of decisions will suffer because of less time to think and act. Variance definitely goes up with the more hands you play as you basically turn into a lesser poker player hense you will have more variance.

This variance is very much about quality of play which can be broken down mathatically cuz you can basically say if you are 24 tabling only 1/24 of your focus is on 1 table/1 decision and in doing so will decrease you ability to play poker. I'm mainly talking about cash games but I'm sure if you're 40 tabling sngs the same applies.

lol, can you get any cockier. must be cool to think you know it all, but don't have to come up with solid arguments ... a bit like religious freaks arguing with atheists claiming 'i just feel that god exists'

for someone claiming he has some sort of superior knowledge, there's surprisingly so much wrong ... let's assume all the winners would disappear with the snap of a finger. it still wouldn't be a casino game, because there would be new winners, who have an edge versus the others. maybe they would become 'regs', maybe they even would beat certain games with more BB/100 than regs today. even if you would only keep the nine worst players, someone would be the winner at that table and prolly could beat the rake.

the most hilarious point is your "greed" accusation. it's was the greed of the regs and other ppl, who wanted to have a piece of the cake, making several games unbeatable. the game evolved because we had book authors, trainers and software developers. the general knowledge grew and the edges got smaller. every decision/discussion (strategy related) was or is about maximizing the profit. And guess what, that's perfectly fine. there's money to be made.

there's no doubt, that PS (or any other operator) could deduct less rake. but operators nowadays pay way more taxes and regulatory fees, so it's fair to assume, that operators are making less money. therefore it's logical for them to change the system, e.g. cut bonuses.

the third party in the system are the players, who pay for all of it. tbh i don't have the numbers, but i didn't read anything the last years, that made me believe, that there is more money deposited than before black friday either.

basically ... less money goes in = less money is to be made

poker is a dynamic game and so is the environment. if the announced changes force some regs to leave or go bust, it's sad for them, but that's the nature of the game. i can't remember that there was an outrage when former winners started to become losers.

Spin and Gos are highly successful ... ppl love these format, because it's modern gaming. the mobile market is growing super fast and of course, the operators will offer such games. so they don't turn poker in a "high variance casino game", they just give their players what they want.

it's btw extremely amusing, that it seems you pulled out the number (0,0000001%) out of your hat ... if not, i would be interested, where you find such stuff

it's so surprising, that you just simply understand, what consumer advertising is. pushing poker-pros as stars and role models was a concept which worked well ... back then.

against common believe most recs today don't dream about being the next moneymaker or durrrr. sure they still want to win money, but they want fast action and fun as well.

i said it before and i really believe, that a Neymar brings way more new players into poker, than any "word of mouth" propaganda.

back then poker was everywhere on TV ... everyone wanted to buy a poker set and play with friends or online. check google trends if you don't believe. so it was a nobrainer to sign as many famous poker-pros as possible, to attract new players.

anyway ... please enlighten me with "solid reasoning" and explain me, why operators are wrong with the 'recreational player model'. explain me, why the market has changed, but poker rooms should stick to the old system. but pls stop posting the shill BS ^^

This is actually kinda funny to me cuz if you study neuroscience then you see why that is actually a valid argument. I'm not saying it's one way or the other on this issue but I am saying that the gut feeling is part of your brain/bodies communication system and a big part of how biological animals' mechanisms work on a day to day basis. They call it the low road in neuroscience, getting information on the feeling level that is a lot quicker then the high road which is intellect and specifics on a subject. Basically it helps you operate from a moment to moment basis without all the hangups of specifics, think of people who overthink things, they operate on the high road on a habit basis.

Dismissing this mechanism is ignoring a big part of what it is to be in and be operating a biological body. It's ignoring science.....




From what I understand Isilder even plays using the low road a ton, not thinking much and just acting on instinc. It's very interesting stuff and can be conditioned it seems.

Thanks man,idk if i can get,but im trying

Im not arguing w him,cause hes a clear shill,so its pointless.

Just ask any sng player that which one is higher variance a game with 5000 chips and 10 min levels,or a game w 500 and 2?
Or any cash grinder that if U need say 100 buyins to play your level comfortably,what would he suggest for the same level of zoom?

Obviously there are many other factors than structure and game speed,but those factors are usually out of the site's control.Simple logic....

Im really surprised U guys have a ****load of posts on here and do not know that hyper is much bigger variance than regular,or zoom than regular.
Even Josem acts like it's new to him,despite working in this industry for God knows how many years...

Where did I say anything about having superior knowledge?LOL MAN,the above is basic knowledge to serious players.FFS

Ofc there would be new winners,but a fish is a different type of winner.
He wins less,and gives it back easier.More likely to try the casino as well...Quite obvious again.

Regs are greedy?Yes,of course.Im also against huds,scripts,bots,coaching sites...etc.
BUT it is a different greed.Its a greed of NEED.You know,if u put thousands of hours into something,sacrifice most of your life for it,you expect to see the fruit of it.Cause you know,you need to pay your bills,acheve something in your meaningless life...etc.

The sites on the other hand make nice money by the rake/fees they collect.
BUT it is not enough.It wasn't enough 10 years ago,it wasn't 5 years ago,and now...Now nothing is enough.

When FTP opened the casino,my affil told me that this is the route they decide to take,and that PS will remain poker only for sure!
Well i strongly disagreed,and we all know how that turned out. (Hello StarsDraft!)

When they introduced rush and hypers and stuff i already said that i don't like this direction,cause it takes away much of a good players edge,and forces one to grind a LOT more (Hello variance,Hi Spins!)

Yes,i feel very much for the sites as well.Poor sites!You know there are some,who only make millions of pure profit a year.Not tens,not hundreds just millions.Whats a hundo good for anyway?
If you ask me poor PS shold make at least 5 Billion profit a year!
Cause you know,they deserve it.For being always so fair...

Less money goes in?Possibly.But they try to take more and more of it.
That is for sure.And on everybody's expence.

Former winners becoming losers is in many ways the site's fault,not just theirs.I won't go into more detail about this now.

Spins are succesful because ppl playing them become ADDICTED easily.
And thats exactly the point.

Of course i pulled that number out of my hat.But i think we would be very surprised to see the actual numbers on this.Not gonna happen,obv.

The old system was the EXACT CAUSE of the boom,possibly even the cause of us,talking here and now.
Yep,so bad.
But hey! You can become the next Neymar Jr. or Cr7 if u play on PS!
Ohh wait...

Trust me I understand marketing quite well,and i understand how things are going in todays world as well...

And honestly,i have to throw up,seeing these campaigns.
Moneymaking machine for them?Sure.

I didn't plan to leave more replies regarding this subject,but since U asked so nice
Most of which you wrote makes perfect sense as well,but the whole picture is a lot more colorful than you see it now.

Peace out

you generally have two choices in the world when it comes to things like this. move a mountain or move yourself.

I think this really sums it up. There have been a number of things over time that have started this demise - UIGEA, Black Friday, Training Vids, Bots, Rake Increases, and now VIP Changes. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and the culmination of the aforementioned forces destroyed the idea of becoming a poker professional.

Being a poker pro was never meant to be a career choice. Theres a reason when you tell random successful people that you play poker for a living they think you're stupid. Thats because making a living playing a game is stupid. The only reason why it existed to begin with was due to a once in a lifetime perfect storm of events that will never happen again. If you want to follow the money, its time to turn to esports or DFS, although the latter is probably escaping its prime as well. Poker is a fringe hobby now, and infested by regs who have been grinding for a decade now that have no backup plans and thus need to continue putting in work and widening their information advantage over rec players.

When figuring out the correct way to play a poker hand, you don't take a poll of players and choose the most popular option as the "right way". Rather, you do the maths and come up with an answer based upon logic and reasoning. The same thing applies here.

I'm using the word 'variance' as it is commonly used in the English language to refer to the mathematical concept reasonably described online here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance

It appears that you're using 'variance' to mean 'the thing that causes me to lose at poker'. Losing at poker can be caused by variance - but they can also be caused by other things too. Most obviously, they're more likely to be caused in games where you have a smaller (or negative) win-rate. Tournaments with a faster structure are likely to have a smaller win-rate, and thus, losing streaks are probably more likely - but I don't see any reason that the variance will be any different (after you account for the different win-rate, of course) if you have the same pay-out structure.
I'm not an expert on everything, and I don't pretend to be. I participate in this forum because I'm keen to learn, and the issues here are interesting to me.
You make it sound here like you're a victim of the site operator here in the way that you describe alternative games. You make it sound like weaker players have no choice in the matter, that they have no personal agency, and just play whatever games online poker sites tell them to play. You are certainly not alone here. There is a common attitude on this forum that "SiteA killed GameA by introducing GameB".

I don't think that's the right way to think about this issue.

Rather, I think that what happens is "Players choose to play GameB instead of GameA." I think that this is a really important point - that players choose to play the games and formats that they want to play.

This is a good thing - because it shows that online poker sites are subject to the demands of their players. This means that online poker sites are forced to innovate by improving current games, and introducing new games, to earn the custom of players.

I think that different players have different reasons to play, and have a wide variety of different game preferences. I don't think it is reasonable to be angry at an online poker operator for allowing players to play a game other than the game that you want people to play.

Variance can be both positive and negative.

It might come off as I look at it like 'the thing that causes me to lose at poker',cause well U know...I was under EV during most of my poker carrier.


"I'm not an expert on everything, and I don't pretend to be. I participate in this forum because I'm keen to learn, and the issues here are interesting to me."

Then now U have learnt that hyper and zoom means huge variance.
You are welcome

'Altenative games',"demanded by players" are coincidently huge printers for the site.

I do not expect U to accept my thinking,since we are on totally different sides of the same coin.

Interesting read

http://www.onlinepokerreport.com/18694/evaluating-value-pokerstars-supernova-elite/

For a 10 year grinder the bolded is close to 100% false, although the site does still enjoy some freedom to restrict which games are played. For weaker players, particularly a first time depositor with no knowledge or skills, the statement is virtually 100% true. The less informed the consumer, the more prone to skillful manipulation via marketing he is.

That is a function of the players knowledge and maturity of preferences. Novice consumers often don't really know what they want, especially when the product is very complex or technical. Like Noam Chomsky has pointed out, if this were not true the multi billion dollar public relations industry's sole function would be objectively listing characteristics of various products and maybe directing consumers to niche products based on their needs. Instead its Joe Camel.

Like corralling them into more addictive, casino-like formats?

The spin and goes are a perfect example of why the quoted statement is materially false. New players have no ability to assess their edges, evaluate variance or determine how long a given bankroll might last at a given format, stake or structure. Now all of a sudden customers' deposits "last 40% less long". Unless you argue that Stars' customers are actually trying to go broke in the shortest time possible, its clear the new formats offered which they are actively channeled into are both beyond their analytical capabilities and detrimental to their longevity, if not their perceived experience.

Its reasonable enough to be mad when in a fit of naked venality the operator decides to snatch the last 5% of available profits that it wasn't already devouring while dangerously weakening the idea around which its entire world has accreted - that poker is a game of skill from which profit can be extracted for those willing to work hard and pay their dues.

Are you talking about recs?
If so do you really think they give a damn about any of this?

I think poker shows a whole series of changes where the exact opposite is true. The most obvious is the replacement of Limit Hold'em with No Limit Hold'em - something entirely driven by player demand.

The game of poker has substantially evolved even over the last fifteen years: with players choosing to play No Limit over Limit, then the demand for 100bb NLHE (anyone remember "the move of honour"??), through to the popularity of Rush (and then Zoom), and more recently things like Spin & Go's.
Your view here that recreational players are just "victims" of online poker marketing who are "corralled" is really quite extraordinary, and really demeaning of recreational players. If poker players just did what online poker sites told them to do, we'd be playing in Home Game satellites trying to qualify for The MONSTER.

It's really odd that you are simultaneously convinced of your own ability to choose the best game for yourself (which, of course, online poker sites should "channel" new and recreational players towards) yet at the same time, you are also convinced of the inability of other players to choose the best game for themselves.
The other explanation is that most new players join via the mobile apps, and choose formats that are well suited to playing on mobile apps.

Think about which game formats are most suitable to playing on a mobile device. Then think about which game formats have recently become more popular.

Do you think the rise of those formats over the last few years - as more people play poker from a mobile device - is merely a coincidence?

but imo you keep ignoring my points, that operators make way less money and therefore have to cut bonuses. basically you tell a company to risk going out of business, just so a certain amount of grinders can make a living.

at the same time it seems you ignore the fact, that grinders lost their jobs because of other (better) grinders, when the game evolved. so when 'grinder-made' factors influence the game in a negative way (e.g. slimmer edges), it seems to be okay.

besides that you, argue that grinders put a lot of "thousands of hours" into the job and they have an expectation "fruit on it". exactly the same can be said for the operators or the ppl working for it.

anyway ... i really appreciate that you replied and i probably have read a way too negative tone in your post before.

one last thing though: you wrote plenty of stuff about variance. here you have to admit, that the grinders had also a big influence.

like i said the games evolved and ppl started to play way more aggressive, which makes variance higher. while the 'mathematical variance' isn't effected by the win rate, the 'variance in your winning graph' is. slimmer edges means less winrate. add the higher standard deviation and you have massive swings.

long time since I heard that phrase