I haven't seen anything on this (please feel free to refer me). There is a lot about variance in general. They say as you move up variance gets bigger because you and your opponents make fewer mistakes and usually not huge mistakes. However, another very important factor is showdown rates.

Fewer showdowns would mean less variance correct? In my experience, there are FAR FEWER showdowns once you move to NL200+. So while yes you're much less likely to be an 80/20 favorite when all-in....you are all-in going to showdown much less.

As is often the case in poker, feelings and the mathematical truth are in conflict so maybe this is what's happening. This would be hard to prove mathematically, but has anyone tried?

Basically, if the frequency of showdown is low enough, it could more than compensate for the fact you are less of a favorite when all in. (that's a big if)

I know popular sentiment is variance is way worse the higher you go so I'm sure the regs won't agree. However, I've also heard NL50 is excruciatingly hard to beat, but that's mostly due to rake.

Nice GIF. Obviously variance has been discussed at length. But I haven't seen any real attempt to determine which contributes more to variance....show down rates vs. all in equity win percentage.

wow

Nederlandertjeeee

Hi Nick! So, 2010 join date and you've never been over to BBV before...please note the variance in the answers you receive here.

there are less showdowns at higher limits for you because you lose all the pots, ldo