More Tables = More Variance

ALL IN CLUBS

ALL IN CLUBS

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Total posts
1,423
Chips
0
My belief is you can make up for Bad varience at more tables, For instance
If you only played 2 tables for 2 hours and you get pocket AA and get your 100 bb in and get sucked out on. Well with just playing 2 tables you might not even get the 100 bb back that night with playing 2 tables, but if your multi tabling 6 tables or more you might get trip 5s or AA again and have them hold to make up for the 100bb you just lost..
 
madtom1337

madtom1337

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Total posts
283
Chips
0
My belief is you can make up for Bad varience at more tables, For instance
If you only played 2 tables for 2 hours and you get pocket AA and get your 100 bb in and get sucked out on. Well with just playing 2 tables you might not even get the 100 bb back that night with playing 2 tables, but if your multi tabling 6 tables or more you might get trip 5s or AA again and have them hold to make up for the 100bb you just lost..

Obviously this is the argument which undermines my bad title choice, which stands (more tables = less variance, in actuality, lol). But my point is, if you're playing 16+ tables, you're likely to frequently go through bad times where you lose 3 or 4 BIs in a row, same as you might win that many, and sometimes you'll go through real bad patches where you lose more, same as you'll go through real good patches where you win more... Granted, a lot of the time it'll be a more steady climb. My point is though, even if you have it in you to make good betting decisions and click and think quickly enough to play that many tables at a time, learning to comfortably play this much poker at a time requires more than just knowing your betting decisions inside out. One must also be completely detached from their bankrolls and results emotionally and psychologically.
 
E

edgie212

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Total posts
174
Chips
0
I think everyone is basically saying the same thing, it is simply that if you're playing more tables, you will simply move through these swings at a faster rate. If you play one SNG a day and only cash once a month, it is different than if you play 30 a day and cash once. The amount of time between hot and cold is the determining factor, which can be bent by our own mental mindset.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
Uhm guys, the topic title is correct, more tables = more hands/hr = more variance. If you're playing 200 hands/hr your potential swing in that hour is significantly greater than if you're playing 50 hands/hr.

Of course more tables also means that your results will converge on expectancy more quickly, but that's a separate issue from variance.
 
bullishwwd

bullishwwd

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Total posts
5,717
Awards
13
US
Chips
233
To clarify:-

More tables = same variance
More volume = less variance
Please elaborate for me as it seems that more tables = more volume...great example of RUSH POKER. Wally
 
bullishwwd

bullishwwd

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Total posts
5,717
Awards
13
US
Chips
233
Uhm guys, the topic title is correct, more tables = more hands/hr = more variance. If you're playing 200 hands/hr your potential swing in that hour is significantly greater than if you're playing 50 hands/hr.

Of course more tables also means that your results will converge on expectancy more quickly, but that's a separate issue from variance.
Exactly what I was thinking....and statistically over time there will be a convergence towards the mean. :)
 
madtom1337

madtom1337

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Total posts
283
Chips
0
Aha! I knew I was right! Woop... i r wisdom xD

Thank you Dorkus <3
 
TPC

TPC

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Total posts
3,766
Chips
0
Uhm guys, the topic title is correct, more tables = more hands/hr = more variance. If you're playing 200 hands/hr your potential swing in that hour is significantly greater than if you're playing 50 hands/hr.

Of course more tables also means that your results will converge on expectancy more quickly, but that's a separate issue from variance.

Is it? I beg to differ.

More hands/hr = 80/20's running closer to 80/20 and 60/40's running closer to 60/40 = less variance
 
C

cAPSLOCK

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Total posts
2,550
Chips
0
Is it? I beg to differ.

More hands/hr = 80/20's running closer to 80/20 and 60/40's running closer to 60/40 = less variance

SO, if I play more tables I will get sucked out on:

Less often - or more often?
More times per hour - or less times per hour?
Less times in a row - or more times in a row?


I have a feeling that we are arguing with more than one conception of what variance actually is.
 
dmorris68

dmorris68

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 27, 2008
Total posts
6,788
Awards
2
Chips
0
I have a feeling that we are arguing with more than one conception of what variance actually is.
This is precisely what I've been thinking.

When I first read this thread, my knee-jerk reaction was to ask how anyone could think more tables == more variance, when everything I've learned up to this point said the opposite and I thought it was commonly held as fact.

But then I started thinking it through.

If you define variance by swings, and accept that you're going to have X number of swings over Y number of hands (grossly simplified, I know, but bear with me), then if you play Y*16 number of hands within the same period of time, you're going to have 16x more swings within that time, i.e. more variance.

OTOH, as TPC points out, the higher frequency of variance gets you to the "long term" faster, where we all agree the odds converge towards expectation, therefore you get through the negative effects of variance in a shorter time. In a sense, the perceived effect of variance is reduced or shortened.

So I can see it argued from both directions, I guess. Or am I totally off base here, lol.
 
C

Chemist

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 17, 2009
Total posts
1,480
Chips
0
Perhaps you have a bigger screen and bigger brain than me.
My experience of playing more tables than I can handle is that I simply play ABCpoker, shove with Queens or above and hope for the best. 15 tables later wonder why the table I shoved with the best hand is no longer active but don't have time to investigate what sucked out against it. Until an hour later I am back down to a playable number of tables.

I believe the overall result of increasing the number of tables will be worse not because of variance (periods of bad luck counteracting periods of good luck), but because the ability to make reads, make sensible plays and follow the table action are reduced to such an extent that the quality of play is reduced to average or worse.
 
dmorris68

dmorris68

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 27, 2008
Total posts
6,788
Awards
2
Chips
0
Perhaps you have a bigger screen and bigger brain than me.
My experience of playing more tables than I can handle is that I simply play ABCpoker, shove with Queens or above and hope for the best. 15 tables later wonder why the table I shoved with the best hand is no longer active but don't have time to investigate what sucked out against it. Until an hour later I am back down to a playable number of tables.

I believe the overall result of increasing the number of tables will be worse not because of variance (periods of bad luck counteracting periods of good luck), but because the ability to make reads, make sensible plays and follow the table action are reduced to such an extent that the quality of play is reduced to average or worse.
This is simply due to inexperience with multi-tabling. Yes, it does necessitate a different strategy, but it's not one so simple as shoving QQ+ and hoping for the best. As you gain experience with playing more tables, you can still make decisions based on reads, and certainly sensible and high quality plays -- otherwise nobody would be doing it. True, you generally cannot play at quite as high a level as you can with 1-2 tables, but the volume more than makes up for it. As your $/100 falls, your $/hr rises (assuming you're playing well).

Certainly starting out, until the player gets acclimated, winrate is going to suffer. But that's not due to variance.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
Yeah it depends on how you look at it I guess.

Another factor to consider is that as you add more tables your winrate decreases and thus your variance will inevitably increase accordingly.

Thinking about it, all factors considered, # of tables probably doesn't have that much of an impact on variance in either direction.
 
dmorris68

dmorris68

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 27, 2008
Total posts
6,788
Awards
2
Chips
0
Another factor to consider is that as you add more tables your winrate decreases and thus your variance will inevitably increase accordingly.
But one could also counter that winrate decreases (in $/100) because the player is playing fewer hands (assuming it isn't due to increased losses from not knowing how to play more tables, lol). Looser play == more variance, tighter play == less variance. Therefore variance is somewhat mitigated by the tighter play inherent in multi-tabling.

And at some point of course $/hr increases, sometimes substantially, assuming the player continues to actually win, even if it's at a much lower BB/100 rate. Dropping from 4BB/100 single-tabling to 1BB/100 8-tabling is still a double increase in your hourly rate.

Thinking about it, all factors considered, # of tables probably doesn't have that much of an impact on variance in either direction.
Agreed. There are all sorts of variables, and variance is such a nebulous concept anyway, I don't know if we'll ever have a truly empirical answer.

However if we take the middle ground and say that both are roughly equal in variance, it cannot be denied that higher volume gets you to the long-term quicker. Multi-tabling is by far the easiest way to achieve volume. Thus the negative effects of variance (which is what we pay the most attention to, because obv when we win it's because of our mad skillz) are diminished quicker, and we realize that much sooner that our AA actually does hold up ~80% of the time. ;)
 
Jagsti

Jagsti

I'm sweet enough!
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Total posts
5,478
Chips
0
OK I have only skimmed this thread, but feel I could add a little perspective on this. As some of you know I have MMTd for a couple of years now. I played 600k hands last year, and Ill probably play well more than that this year. I often play 24 tables fr and anything up to 16 tables at 6max.

It is often argued that the more tables you play then this should reduce variance for some of the reasons stated earlier ITT. In most peoples eyes, the more tables you play, then potentially this can often reduce your winrate. If you winrate reduces, then variance will increase. So we have to find a sweet spot, if you like, were you can actually maintain an o.k winrate and playing a lot of tables (this should increase your $/hr assuming you have rakeback which is obv more important than ptbb/100). Once you go beyond that sweet spot and i.e. increasing your tables beyond a level you can effectively make correct decisions then your winrate will decrease dramatically. As a result of this variance seemingly increases. Another factor in this is your mindset. Lets say you lose 2, QQ>AA on the run when someone 3bs you again on another table your thinking theres no way I can be a dog again and low and behold your QQ>AA again. You end up tilting a lot more than normal, in my experience playing so many table b/c you just think, theres no way they can have it again!

From my perspective I play way too many tables, way beyond my sweet spot, and have experienced mind blowing variance as a result (also extremely bad play I have to add).
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
Everything below assumes you play exactly as well at 1 table as you do a 20.

Playing more tables will increase your variance over a set period of time.

Playing more tables will not increase/decrease your variance over a set number of hands.
 
madtom1337

madtom1337

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Total posts
283
Chips
0
Well... This has definitely been interesting, I think... But I think we've squeezed as much juice as possible from this topic now, lol. At least it ended up with the "More Tables = More Variance" thing not making me look a total prat xD
 
dmorris68

dmorris68

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 27, 2008
Total posts
6,788
Awards
2
Chips
0
Yeah, more tables = less variance.
Post count + 1, eh?

Because if you read through the thread, I think you'll see that several of us have demonstrated that isn't necessarily the case. It depends on too many variables, not the least of which is how you define "variance."
 
Top