How come actually that the variance in PLO is considered to be higher than in NLH no matter what? I thought that the extent of one's edge and the va****** are inveresely correlated. And as potential edges are much bigger in PLO, the variance one experiences should actually be lower than in NLH. However, pretty much the opposite is the case.

And claiming that equities just run much closer in PLO isn't exactly correct either, right? Equities only run closer pre-flop. Post-flop, good players should manage to target situations in which they dominate villain quite significantly (for instance Jeff Hwang lists these situations as 1. The Nut Straight Freeroll 2. The Nut Full House Freeroll 3. Overfull vs. Underfull 4. Set-over-Set 5. Flush-over-Flush 6. Top-Set Plus Draws 7. Dominating Draws).

Any thoughts?

Pre opensizes of 3.5bb compared to minraise in NL. Leads to almost 2x bigger pots.

Preflop: It’s hard to win preflop and often times pot will be bloated.

Post flop: Those situations are great to target, but what do you do the other 99% of the hands?

Many times when you get it in with top set, you’ll be up against a big draw. Many times with big draw you will be up against a set/straight/big draw, etc. etc

Variance and edge are correlated within the context of each game, but the ratio changes from game to game. Although that's not even really true, it's just you experience far less negative variance when you're really good, and very little positive variance when you're really bad.

The answer is that equities run closer. Good players get significant edge from bad players overvaluing hands, and therefore running into your 7 listed situations, but I don't make my money getting in the nut straight with a freeroll vs the naked nut straight. That situation does not come up particularly frequently and the freeroll hits even less frequently. Equities run closer postflop too. In NLHE you do sometimes see the classic postflop overpair vs pair + fd, and a few others, but in general draws aren't as powerful compared to PLO because in PLO you can have wraps and you can have combo draws way more often. Barring set on sets, which admittedly do happen more in PLO, you're rarely getting your money in in single-raised pots against vaguely thinking opponents on the flop with more than say 70%, whereas in NLHE you get the WA/WB situation and thin tptk vs tp2k spots very often.

IMO is comes down to your definition of certain words/terms and how you apply them to your data points. If you take a 'simple' approach then all you have to say is that your opponents have more backdoors in PLO than in NL. Are you looking at wins and losses, stack swing sizes or just the profit line?

In most of the spots above your opponent is just dead in NL, but they 'always' have backdoor danglers in PLO that create the variances that aren't there in NL. I have a Reg to this day that is still mad about WINNING a hand with AAxx v my Flopped 3 pair and us only running it once with him going run/run for bigger 2 pair. He would rather have won $20 PF by me folding a hand 'I should never call with' or doing RIT so he could 'win' his chips back on at least one of the Boards.

For me there's two key factors that are pretty much related .. Opponents don't fold as often Flop/Turn since they do 'see' their equity (no matter how small) and thus pots are 'automatically' bigger when they ultimately get pushed 'to someone'. When V fold, there is no variance .. you win every time so to speak.

I think most Rec Players see variance as 'swings' .. so you get the attraction to RIT with hopes of at least winning half a pot. They don't really care what their equity is at the time, they just care that they have a chance to reduce the swing by creating two data points instead of one. It's an interesting mindset that you are more complacent with losing $100 twice than $200 once!

Yes, variance is tied to the equity of the spots you are involved in .. but IMO since the pots are bigger and ultimately happen much more often in PLO there really is no doubt that your data points will vary much more than in NL over the same time frame. GL

Not really. Variance and one's style of play have a strong connection, but some of the best players play a very high variance style. Some marginal winners play a very low variance style. In certain games a strong player might also play a very low variance style (like a live 1/2 nit). If you are taking a lot of aggro lines, building big pots, triple barreling off some of the time, there is the potential for things to go very, very bad and the potential for things to go very, very well. Wheras if you just nut peddle and trap, you will probably lose a ton of blinds, lose a ton of small pots, lose a few big pots and win lots of big pots. So it will be a very low variance style.

There is a stronger connection between winrate and probability of not being stuck after x hands, but that is not the same thing as variance.


Omaha is higher variance because there are a lot of multiway allins and multiway pots, and because your opponent tends to have more equity when you get the money in. Even if you cooler someone they will usually have an extra 5-10% from backdoors, and then there are all the flips like big draw vs strong made hand. The games also play much deeper, exasperating the feast or famine effect.

No, variance will primarily be a function of the game structure and will be independent from how good you are. You are probably getting confused between variance and how it relates bankroll swings, and here win rate has a significant impact as it's the ratio of wr/sd that is important.

This will have a small impact on variance. From primedope variance in PLO ranges from 120-160 whereas NLHE variance ranges from 75-120. So, within these ranges styles can have an impact, yes, but the major impact is due to the game itself.

This is the best answer.