Originally Posted by louaylouay
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I don't mean that you only play AA, as a few people have interpreted it as. I mean if someone ALWAYS gets their money in good. Only playing premiums in position and only putting money in when you hit. Although, statistically, you will win more often than not, you will never, ever, ever hit the true odds of the outcome


In a large sample your outcome will very likely be similar to the true odds. If you have a forty percent chance of losing, you will lose about forty percent of the time.
Originally Posted by louaylouay
because you are only seeing negative variance in these situations, since you are only playing positions where you CANNOT draw out or cooler someone.


You will see both negative and positive variance in small samples. If your true odds are a forty percent chance of losing, don't be surprised if you lose only thirtyfive percent of the time (positive variance) or fortyfive percent of the time (negative variance) in a sample of one hundred hands.
Whether you are ahead or behind has nothing to do with the type or amount of variance you experience.
Originally Posted by louaylouay
I think this is a better way to give an example: Say you are a 6040 favorite every time you bet. You're playing in good spots that you have an edge in.
The problem is, you will NEVER get the maximum possible value over the long run.


How much value you get is mostly dependent on how you play the hands  when to bet, and how much to bet. This has nothing to do with variance.
Originally Posted by louaylouay
You will win the hands you were supposed to win, which is great. You will also sometimes lose hands you were supposed to win, which is unfortunate.


Over the long term, you will probably win approximately the number of hands you were supposed to win, and lose approximately the number of hands you were supposed to lose.
"Supposed to win" is a strange phrase to apply to an individual hand. You may be favored to win a hand, but you are not "supposed to win". When you are ahead 60/40, you are supposed to lose forty percent of the time. You seem to be using "supposed to win" instead of "favored to win". They mean different things.
Originally Posted by louaylouay
My point is that this losing is never, ever offset by winning with worse hands. That's the thing about variance. Variance is accepted, and sometimes loved, because it goes both ways.


You seem to think your forty percent chance of losing is "variance". It is not. If you look back at your last ten 60/40 situations, and you won six of them, then there is no variance in that sample. If you won all ten hands, that is variance, even though you were ahead in every hand.
Originally Posted by louaylouay
For every person that has drawn a straight on you, you have the opportunity to draw the straight on them. UNLESS YOU DONT EVER PLAY THAT OPPORTUNITY.
Hopefully this clears my question up a bit.


Certainly you should play speculative hands when fold equity,
pot odds, and implied odds justify it. But that has nothing to do with variance.