Is 40/80 mixed that tough?
Dealer said everyone in that game had a bracelet. Now there are a lot of mixed and games that are not NLH or PLO high tournaments at the WSOP. Are mixed games at those stakes almost all pros and mostly good pros?
17 Replies
Probably not. But, since I don't know the specific game you're talking about, it could easily be a very tough game. There is even more variance in limit games than there is in no-limit. A weak player of whatever type has a better shot to beat out a given number of entries in a limit tournament than in a big bet tournament. I know somebody with multiple limit bracelets, and I think he is very weak at all the games. Even more so in cash, when he can't win pots with just random aggression.
Shhh I'm sitting right here :(
hey i didn't say everyone with a bracelet is not a good player :p
In my experience, any mix (8+ games), will have potential 2-3k swings at any given time, easily. I am seeing 6k swings at big LHE games.
If they are all pros, they all won't be pros for long.
Obviously there can be a period of time when the game is only filled with tough winning players, but long term that can't be the case.
I had a 30/60 LHE game a few weeks ago where it was me along with 4 really good players, and 2 average to poor players. Multiple average players left or didn't join because of how tough the lineup was. Normally I would do the same, but I wanted some practice so I stayed until the game broke 3 handed when I finally quit.
Probably not. But, since I don't know the specific game you're talking about, it could easily be a very tough game. There is even more variance in limit games than there is in no-limit. A weak player of whatever type has a better shot to beat out a given number of entries in a limit tournament than in a big bet tournament. I know somebody with multiple limit bracelets, and
Curious about your claim that there is more variance in Limit than NL.
I assume you mean for 'comparable' stakes, using the usual tournament formula, where the blinds get cut in half; are you saying there is more variance in a 10-20 NL cash game than a 40-80 mixed game?
That is surprising to me. Especially if there are many split games in the mix, as there are in most mixes these days.
That doesn't make sense either. What if my win rate is very good at one game, and very, very small at another. Then the game with the small win rate will of course have more variance compared to my win rate.
This is not the first time this particular assumption has confounded me.
The High Roller scene is supposed to be a victim of this phenomenon. But those are very small MTTs, as compared to say a WSOP $1500 where the variance is enormous relative to any 40 player field.
There is variance. There is EV. Saying one game has more variance since your EV is so low is illogical (to me).
That doesn't make sense either. What if my win rate is very good at one game, and very, very small at another. Then the game with the small win rate will of course have more variance compared to my win rate.This is not the first time this particular assumption has confounded me.The High Roller scene is supposed to be a victim of th
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players? For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
You said there is even more variance in mixed. I may be being pedantic, but what you quote here is nothing to do with that.
A game has its variance. NL HE has higher variance dollar for dollar when you compare 10/20 NL to 40/80 mixed.
You are making up a risk parameter, ie Variance/Edge. You may be right; I am not sure. But the games themselves do not have more variance...
Don't think of it as your personal variance and EV. Think of it in terms of the very best players in that game. What is the ratio of variance to EV for those players For those players, the ratio will be higher in limit games compared to big bet games.
You said there is even more variance in mixed. I may be being pedantic, but what you quote here is nothing to do with that.
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
We seem to be talking past each other. I get your point.
It, however has nothing to do with the games variance. It IS a made up ratio that you seem to think is important.
I am saying that on average, over all mixed games vs all NLH games, that the variance is higher for the best players in the mixed games. You could clearly find contrary examples here and there. But overall, for the best players in the games, there is likely to be more variance in the mixed games.
We seem to be talking past each other. I get your point. It, however has nothing
Just because I keep telling you something is true. Something that seems to be going over your head, doesn't mean I think it is important. It just is. Sorry that is an issue for you. But you asked, and just don't seem to want to accept the answer.
A game has its variance. NL HE has higher variance dollar for dollar when you compare 10/20 NL to 40/80 mixed.
You are making up a risk parameter, ie Variance/Edge. You may be right; I am not sure. But the games themselves do not have more variance...
The crux of the point is that you can't compare variance between games in pure dollar terms because variance is a function of the stakes. You need some way to define equivalent stakes, which is where winrate can come into play.
A more well-defined version of the statement that "mixed games have higher variance than NLHE" would be that the achievable Sharpe ratio for a professional is higher in NLHE.
You could also "compare" stakes by using a fixed ratio of the blind bet(s), which would give you a definitive answer but simply depends on what you consider to be comparable stakes - deferring what I think is the core disagreement. To wit, consider why you don't naturally think that 20/40 NLHE and 40/80 LHE are the "same" stake even though they have the same blind structure. What parameter(s) are you appealing to in order to argue that they are different stakes?
The crux of the point is that you can't compare variance between games in pure dollar terms because variance is a function of the stakes. You need some way to define equivalent stakes, which is where winrate can come into play.A more well-defined version of the statement that "mixed games have higher variance than NLHE" would be that the achievable Sharpe ratio for a professio
I used the common way a tournament mixes those blinds; ie when you are playing a given stake in a mixed game, the structure will have 1/2 the blinds for the big bet games.
You are also looking at this the way Greg is; looking at risk parameters for a 'pro' is useful if you are trying to make a living at the game.
What I am looking at is the actual variance of the game: Put 8 players in a game and see what the SD of their results are. I am reasonably sure that what I am analyzing will yield a higher variance for the NL games. Even moreso if the mix has a bunch of split pot games. Stacks just don't fluctuate anywhere near as much in a mixed 40/80 as they do in a 10/20 NL game.
