Variance in NLH/PLO - Misconceptions?
Note: I am merely asking for other people's opinions or advice. This is a very common topic and I am hoping someone with a little more experience can help me out with my logic.
Often I argue with other poker players and fellow mathematics students at my university involving the topic of "running bad". I've gathered the following perspectives:
1. There is no such thing as running bad, only playing bad!
2. Over time, percentages even out and a bad string of cards becomes erased by a good string of cards.
Now I believe that there is much validity in these perspectives, and maybe in some extremely rare cases that some people are horribly unlucky over time. However, in games like NLH and PLO where the pot sizes vary so greatly, can these generally accepted outlooks be argued?
Basically, my belief is that often when you are playing NL/PLO that situations arise where you have to gamble, or mathematically it make sense to gamble. Typically winning NLH/PLO players don't play large pots very frequently. However, when these large pots occur, do those results even out over time? Most players will conclude that they do and for the most part I do as well. But, I also think that if you are losing a slightly larger percentage of coin flips in big pots, and winning a slightly larger percentage every coin flip in smaller pots, then your cards could be evening out, but the money won't necessarily.
So, if I have a hand with an x win percentage, and over time I win a reasonably close amount to x%, the cards even out. But at the same time if for most times I win with that hand I am only winning a small pot, and at the same time for most times I lose I am losing a large pot, how can the money even out? This applies more to cases where x is not much larger than 1-x (something like 50-65%).
Again, I know my logic may be flawed but it is something I'm trying to figure out.