Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Variance

Reply to Thread
  1. HITIDE60 HITIDE60 is offline

    Monmouth Junction, NJ
    United States

    Posts: 129
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 12:18am)

    About two weeks ago gidders posted about how people blame variance for losing when they are just not winning players....However in almost any tournament you play you will likely encounter a bad beat. I do my best to stay away from the coin flips but variance can kill people. They aren't all losing players. For example... if you go in with a-q after a flop of a-q-5 and someone has q-5 and they river a 5 its certainly unlucky. However what if math played out perfectly and for what its worth you encountered this situation 7 times every tournament you were in. What if the 7th time it happened you were always on the bubble and that was the one you lost. You can now say you lost soley based on variance. Therefore Variancre fucks us all in the ass... Atleast those of us who have bad luck.
  2. gambler2k4 gambler2k4 is offline

    Columbus, OH
    United States

    Posts: 2,315
    Joined: Feb 06

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 12:31am) in reply to HITIDE60

    no duh variance effects everyone. you thought there are people out there who actually avoid it?
     
  3. Adam Adam is offline Emperor

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 12,631
    Joined: Dec 04

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 12:31am) in reply to HITIDE60

    If you have to risk your entire stack in a showdown with cards to come 7 times in a tourney, it's going to be awfully tough to win. To say you have bad luck is to imply that it's easy for others to win....they're usually just doing more things right if they're winning more. I'm pretty sure that was the point of gidd's post as well
     
  4. HITIDE60 HITIDE60 is offline

    Monmouth Junction, NJ
    United States

    Posts: 129
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 12:48am) in reply to Adam

    MAYBE BUTTTTTTTTTTTTT......the point was say it happens 7 times and the one time u lose is always the time your all in. Thats my point!
    Thread Starter
  5. DexterCain DexterCain is offline

    Posts: 13,456
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 5:46am) in reply to HITIDE60

    ^^^ ?!?
  6. betbrett betbrett is offline

    United States

    Posts: 2,344
    Joined: Apr 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 10:44am) in reply to HITIDE60

    The poster has a point. If you theoretically make every decision correctly and you win early when it matters little and lose late when it matters a lot, then you may be winning the expected amount of these situations, but losing them when it hurts your chances to win the most.
  7. servitup servitup is offline

    Chapel Hill, NC
    United States

    Posts: 461
    Joined: Feb 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 10:49am) in reply to betbrett

    if you play long enough then this is not possible. you will win some crucial ones and lose some. get it? regarding the picture, if that is the OP then wow, shes hot.
  8. betbrett betbrett is offline

    United States

    Posts: 2,344
    Joined: Apr 05

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 10:55am) in reply to servitup

    If you knew how long "long enough" really was then you would not be so cavalier about it.

    And believe me, I 'get it' better than most.
  9. MadTiger MadTiger is offline

    Akron, OH
    United States

    Posts: 6,506
    Joined: Feb 06

    May 6th, 2006 (5/6/2006 2:51pm) in reply to betbrett

    Well, we need a corollary to the Fundamental Theorem accounts for the the heavier weight placed on late tourney decisions that could be GG to you.
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads