More variance at micros? Opinions! "It's only a dollar, I don't get care"

What's the general opinion on variance at micro stake games?

I hear people say at the highest games possible, your edge decreases and variance is huge.

This I guess is for either MTT/SNG/CASH as it's all the same in terms of the players in general.

The other evening for example, I played a game and you see all kinds of ridiculous stuff happen in them (MTT'S), people love an Ace and will stack, people love a Gamble etc..


Some guy 3bet some other guy, then get shoved on and he called 45blinds. The shover showed up with Aces, the other relatively deep player called with 7,8os and hit a straight. I said

"Wow...any particular reason you called, surely you can't ever think he's shoving worse here?"

The response I got didn't surprise me, I've seen it before

"It's only a dollar, I don't get care" or I've seen responses like "HAHA, yeah just to suck out it was worth the call" when someone whines at them for example.

This led me to the conclusion that when people say variance gets worse as you move up, I do in a way kind of see how but then I can't help but wonder if it's actually possible for higher stakes to be more variance filled based on some reasons below.

People don't "think" if you raise pre flop with A,J for example and a,x calls..and an Ace hits..quite often enough they will stack you and think there ace is good. Varience plays a part when the hit two pair, or vice versa all in preflop the see an Ace so will go all in vs your A,K for example.

You can't bluff at micros very often, people will call down with anything.

People won't fold if you 3bet pre flop, they seem to want to protect their chips if you 3bet with A,K so will snap call your shove with Q,J.

The same applies with so many different but similar situations people can't/won't fold there one pair on a dangerous board and hit two pair, or trips or runner/runner straight/flush etc..

It's situations like this that make variance worse, so I wonder what others think if the grind is longer/harder in a micro limits because the variance is bigger.

This isn't a whine thread or anything, I've always wondered this and got some time to write it up today, so appreciate some thoughts on it.

If you are good, there should be a lot, lot less variance in the micros.

But variance also has to do with game style, type of game you play etc etc.

just 'scribing for now.

I think you're referring more to someone getting a higher ROI% or crushing people easier in micros than higher limits, of course I agree there, however..

I'm unsure as to what you mean.

Well I know what you mean in the sense of players will stack light etc and you should/could/will win more..

However, what I'm saying is, because there are so many people who stack more frequently in MTT's/ the varience is extra large because of this very reason.

A decent player will raise/fold A,X/A,J/A,Q K/Q, J/Q connector cards under pairs for example if someone shoves their stack in most cases unless they have a read. I've noticed people will call because they feel they have invested now and because its "only a dollar" for example will just call so you have that added variance when someone spikes or under pairs for example and noone should/would in general be calling all-ins 50 blinds deep or 100blinds deep or whatever with broad ways, 5,6 suited and so on.

I'm not saying for one minute they are harder, I've learnt after long enough they are easy enough to beat I just mean in general, the actual variance is so much higher.

Another way to put it, is that on average you will see so many more all-ins/multi-way/limped pots in a micro game than a higher limit game because people know it's so unprofitable in general to limp behind with such hands or go all in with any ace thus micros surely have more variance because of this?

Think you're thinking about it wrong ram, variance will be much lower if people are stacking more frequently as you will be calling when ahead more.

Yeah..maybe I am..

Sure you will be ahead more. A winning player will more times than not in most cases get their chips in ahead, so say we take that to a micro level and a higher level game.

If you have more people playing pots, stacking of lighter and more often the variance is going to be higher surely because of probabilities of favourite hands not holding because of that random factor and other random cards being involved in hands reduces the percentages of the better hands holding. Less percentages = more varience.

I'd say it's quite realistic to have 3, maybe 4 way pots quite regularly at micros, so more hands involved in a pot means more variance because the percentages of the favourite hand holding lessens. People limp more, make bad calls with no odds, then hit their flush for example.

Maybe I'm thinking WAY off but here is another example of what I mean,

People make bad calls, don't take odds into the equation of a range of hands one player maybe be playing and not even know anything about odds but call anyway, your top pair good kicker is going to lose more often at a micro level than say at a higher level because in most cases people won't make that "unprofitable" call of putting in 3/4 of their stack in on the turn in the "hope" of hitting that flush card.

This can happen with a random A,3 hand vs an A,K.

If one raises PF with A,K and gets flat called in a micro game and then the same in a higher buy in game.

If an Ace flops and A,K leads out, get's check raised by the weak Ace man but then A,K man shoves, then micros are highly more likely to call here than say a higher buy-in, thus meaning variance is higher because A,x hand is going to hit their rag card more times purely because Ace rag get's it in more in a micro.

Sure you WIN more at micros because of these mistakes, but you will also be riding through variance more?

Does any of that make any sense? haha...it does in my head but hfmm anyway I'm open to hear others opinions.

It doesnt really make sense no, sorry.

We win by getting our money in good that's all there is to it, 70/30's will win 70% of the time probability dictates this, variance isn't real 30% of the time you will lose and you're supposed too. The higher up you go the more you will be getting money in bad so will lose more often, or if you're getting it in good you will be getting it in good "less often" so will win less.

It's hard to explain but playing higher games then your skill edge becomes smaller so there is more variance.

The worse the competition is- the lower the variance

What tends to make this not true is when people make the wrong adjustment to fish- ie things like like calling a 45 blind shove vs the fish with other players left to act.

gl at the tables,

t

The worse the competition the lower the variance?

Really?

I understand the worse the competition the higher the ROI% but "variance" wise

So if we take on average most players in micros are bad players and lots like to play many hands.

If we have Aces the same amount of times in micros as well as higher limits, do you think Aces hold exactly the same based on the fact more people/more hands being involved in a pot? I know over the long haul Aces will win the same amount of time, but I think the percentage wise drops in a micro game purely because of the people involved in a hand.

The more people involved in a pot means your current hand has even less chance percentage wise to win right? If that's right then surely variance is higher because of the lower percentage?

If we get Aces AIPF vs approx 2 people on average (maybe 3) over long haul at micros and we get Aces in on average vs 1 person at a higher limit, that variance is going to be "lower" at a micro level? I can't see how, if the percentage has dropped for Aces to win when vs more people then we are less likely to win the hand thus, more variance no?


By the way, I love debates like this. I'm usually wrong but when I get something in my head I love to hear what others opinions are.

I just thought the higher the percentage the less the variance and the lower the percentage the higher the variance..and if that is the case the micros are indeed more swingy and variance filled

Yes

I voted no. play an ABC style,. and win. no variance(or very little) at 2nl.

But it's mathematically impossible isn't it? If you have more people involved in hand on average 2 maybe even 3 times as much as say a higher limit game which is a fair enough assumption as don't you agree?

If you do agree then you will find your Aces/Kings have a less chance of winning thus, meaning more swings/variance no as it's fact that percentage of win will drop.

Yeah..I'm not for one minute saying that about winning at them as the games are that bad people will stack lightly so it's very easy to make money. That wasn't what I was getting, I was purely getting at a variance/swingy point of view. By the way, more so for MTT's/SNG's rather than cash games .



On another note, I don't think people understand what I mean, or only I actually know what I mean which is fine, maybe all in my head anyway.

ah sorry bud, i dont always read posts properly, im too quick. I agree with you, I play the $1 mtts and its very swingy

Not when you include the fact that you win a proportional bigger pot

Less chance of winning against multiple opponents but bigger overall winnings.

AA HU v a random hand 100bb deep is worth +70bb of equity.

AA against 3 others 100 bb deep is worth +146bb.

Smaller edges = higher variance.

Thats why variance is higher as you move up.

When you get money in the pot you dont expect to be against ranges that have you as a 70% favorite etc very often.

the higher your roi(or your bbs/100) the more it means you are winning,
for example you have a 100% roi - that means on avg you make a 100% return per game(very little variance here)
ok but what if your roi is 0% - that means on avg you make 0% returen per game(extremely high variance because it means sometimes you win and sometimes you lose)
so if we win lots= less variance
where is it easy to win at = lower stakes
so lower stakes = lower variance

do you think variance will be lower when you get it in on average with 70% equity against terrible players or 53% against decent players?

As far as the rationalisation goes, don't forget that there are players at all stakes who will justify their actions by saying "I don't care, it's only $X". To some people, $200 or even $2000 is nothing. It's all relative.

Granted, there are a lot more people who think $1 is nothing, but it's certainly not something that goes away as you move up in stakes.

in a vacuum, getting your money in with 70% equity vs good people is way better than getting your money in with 53% equity vs a drooler-
because once the money is in -math doesnt care if the player is good or bad
gl at the tables,
t

bad runs will stick out like a sore thumb

i made a thread recently that no one answered about how i raised 5x BB with pocket aces and got 5 callers! flop was 567 rainbow, i raised pot, which was huge. villain shoved and i called with equity. the hand that won was 3-4s.

This doesn't make sense to me. What you appear to effectively be saying is that a better player suffers less variance, which is wrong. If somebody is making a 100% return (over a fairly short period of time) then it might mean that variance has actually favoured them during that period of time. Variance is still there, but sometimes it can go your way and sometimes not. What matters in the long run is whether your basic decisions are solid. Also at microstakes how much you win will probably also be affected more by rake.

more in depth version of
get your money in ahead, varaince part of the game.
win moneys

end thread

fold on flop. after 5 callers someone's hitting that flop hard. but what do I know?

http://www.cardschat.com/f11/how-pla...s-when-203024/

you mean this thread with a ton of responses?

+1

find 2 players- one that is really good and the other one that is really bad

now pull up there sharkscopes

the one with the lower roi will have more variance

you can say that better players dont have less variance, but they do- they just play higher stakes and achieve a lower roi than they would at much lower stakes

the best players can handle variance and play to maximize their win per hr not their roi

Yep agree, more fish stay in to see the flop with rubbish, continue in the hand and hit runner runners etc, and take out the big hands.

At that level very little skill and a lot luckboxes

IF Im using proper bankroll management, I aint allowed to play anything over 2 dollars. I dont know as I posted before, I hear people talking about even higher buy in games have it share of awful play too. Im not sure why Ill go to the track and drop $100 or more but online I wont pay over $5 to play a MTT, and $5 is my top shelf limit, maybe its just the online enviroment right now since being newer to game, all I have gotten to see is the destruction of it. WHATS EVEN WORSE THOUGH is these (its just $1 players) always end up on my left with 10x the stack I do by using the ATC magic tricks in the first 20 minutes

even in the low stakes, a good player will still crush the rest. Basically, play your game, switch depending on who you are in a hand with. Got a calling station, show him the nuts, got a LAG, 3 bet him at times. There is a style for every player, just gotta find which the competition is. And the higher the stakes, the lower the variance. You get players who play better and are not trying to throw away their BR. Lower stakes, yeah, you get "it's only a ...." crap, so, just play better and felt him

Just the opposite.

Not only the worse the competition, I would assume that most players here would be likely risking a decent chunk of their bankrolls to play in mid-high stakes tourneys with "less variance ". So you will miss it more which leads to tilt, which leads to more losses and generally bad things.

Put it this way, would you really expect less variance playing one $50 tournament instead of playing ten $5 tournaments?

If I flop a flush draw, the laws of probability tell me my probable completion rate over the long run. But they also tell me nothing about what will happen on this specific occasion. I may make the flush or I may miss it. In fact I may miss five flush draws in a row for a short term completion rate of 0%. Or I may make five flush draws in a row for a short term completion rate of 100%. The difference between my long term expectation and the results that I realize in the short run (in this case 0% or 100% completion), is called variance.

The swing against your bankroll is greater at higher stakes because players at higher levels will see and not call your draws, therefore draws as a weapon are not as useful.

Your variance at low stakes should be more stable if you are a good player because you will spot others nut hands and fold, the swings will be less damaging.

Don't think using draws as a weapon is specifically the reason for higher variance.

At lower stakes it is much easier to hand read and people will stack off much lighter, giving you a far bigger edge. At higher stakes, it is much harder to hand read as people will merge ranges, so your edge (if any) will be smaller.

The bigger your edge, the less variance you will encounter.

I only play micro MTT, so I can't really compare it to anything else. But your theory is correct at the BEGINNING of such a tournament. In fact, you almost pray that you don't get AA in the first few hands because AA has a hard time standing up to five other hands pre-flop all in.

But once the "it's just a dollar" folks are out (which is usually pretty quick) then things get fairly normal. When you're deep in the tourney, nobody really feels, "It's just three hours!"

Besides, the "it's just a dollar" folks usually are pretty bad at the game. Since they can't actually play their way to a win, they just roll the dice with pre-flop all in. Then if they get lucky, they can double up and maybe stay in the game longer than they normally would. But such people's horrible play (impatience, specifically) usually catches up with them, and I find that even if they double up early, they rarely if ever make it to the final table.

I do look forward to the day that my bankroll increases and I don't have to endure this at the beginning of the dollar tourneys. Of course, there's always going to be that guy who thinks, "It's just $100."