Originally Posted by tenbob
The truth of it is, most players dont just tighten up as they add tables, they simply dont play as well. They misclick more, they time out more, they make more silly mistakes. As you winrate drops, your varience increases.
100% agree -- those factors are the one's I'm talking about contributing to lower winrates which are often blamed on higher variance. I just don't buy higher variance being the cause, and also have a hard time accepting the blanket statement that lower winrate == higher variance on its face.
Sure, if you take the simplistic logical direction of higher skill == higher winrate (true) AND higher skill == lower variance (true), then higher winrate == lower variance would also seem to hold true, as would the converse conclusion that lower winrate == higher variance.
But it's flawed logic to base the entire argument on, because of all the nuances in play -- these are not absolutes like A,B,C in the classic logic exercise "if A=B and A=C then B=C" especially when you extend the exercise to imply "more tables == lower winrate THEREFORE more tables == higher variance." That's simply not accurate. For one thing, it doesn't factor in the higher hourly rate which should *exceed* your single (or fewer) table bb/100 winrate (and if it doesn't you shouldn't be playing more tables).
Ultimately we're splitting hairs and chalking up multi-table performance to a variety of factors that we lump under the definition of "variance." With my argument I'm simply trying to isolate variance as pure luck, and not including lack of skill, poor adjustment, poor attention span, and all the other leaks that people have when multi-tabling. So using the pure definition of variance, I'll still hold that more tables <> more variance, but the practical reality is hazy enough to support your theory too so I'll concede to a draw.
Now I'm off to watch the Hatfield & McCoys (appropos, no?)