How to Beat Poker Variance

[@Stockholm_Syndrome]

When I feel I am in a downswing I go down in stakes and play more...when I feel I am in an upswing again I move up to my normal stakes. I would rather be very good and unlucky. Then I know I did the right play and I will win in the long run. If you do something very very often for a long time you will most probably be very good at it. It does not matter what it is. Greetings from Sweden.

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

This is a very good mindset, keep it up :)

[@Michaelperry1985]

Great advice Doc!

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

Thanks Michael!

[@McRuffin]

I recognized you from the mechanics podcast and clicked. Thanks for this video. Really hits home. Subbed !

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

I’m glad you like it and welcome aboard!

[@tiddlewink101]

Most important thing IMO is to figure out whether you are performing well and beating the games you are in…feedback from an honest peer will help with that - if these statements are true then yes high volume will have a high probability of beating variance, so work ethic is the priority and must persist. However if you are inaccurate in this assumption that you are +ev and it’s variance, but instead you are just a losing player or performing poorly (maybe due to negative variance impacting mental game), then the mantra of volume beats luck will be a disaster and instead should focus on improving strategy and in game execution/performance

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

Very true. Volume beats luck providing you are beating the games or you are continually improving your game. If you aren't confident in your skill level, you can apply the same volume beats luck to working on your game

[@ScottHedley]

Great perspective!

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

The skill of the week :)

[@ScottHedley]

I suppose the better perspective one has when they run bad, the easier it is to consistently be resilient putting in quality volume. So resilience is required but it's made easier with a better perspective on the situation.

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

You nailed it when you said "resilience is required but it's made easier with a better perspective" :)

[@chiefkeef217]

goat

[@TheFairway8]

In times of extreme bad beat, suck outs etc etc it’s hard not to think that the poker sites are rigged to keep the awful,players in just enough. A few times I’ve built up a decent micro stakes bankroll to the low mid hundreds. Then all of a sudden I just get slaughtered losing session after losing session until my funds are depleted, on numerous occasions this has happened on Party Poker more than any other site. It’s as if the site says OK that’s enough you need to reload. This is based on fairly high volume about 25, 30 thousand hands a month

[@charlesmurray3255]

This is the mentality that a losing player often has, blaming the site rather than their ability.

[@AdamCarmichaelchannel]

When you blame the site, your mind is desperately trying to find a reason for why you are losing. The site does not care if you win or lose, they make their money from the rake of the games and have no interest in your results. The mind struggles to comprehend how variance works, so it looks for answers. It can either blame the site or blame yourself. Blaming the site is the easier option and unfortunately it will make you a losing player. Understand that sites aren't out to get you, variance is a factor in the short term and work on becoming better to be a long term winner

[@TheFairway8]

Thanks for the replies

[@kholkeholkepolke1135]

Variance calculators and "volume over variance" just seems flawed on so many levels. Does variance refer to the distribution or the end result? Because, sure ill get a boat so many times after 10 million hands, but does this include the actual run outs. If I lose 4 out of 5 boats, because my oppoenents always have a better boat at the time. Does variance truly include the actual run out based on individualistic distribution and end result? I find it hard to believe that volume always reverts back to the mean considering the complexities of the run outs based on situational results. Even if this were so, theres no way to calculate the pot amounts into this theory. Thus, throwing this theory of volume over variance out the window, altogether... Thinking back to the coin flip example, this is overly simplistic. There's no true way to determine variance when you're comparing a result based in conjunction with multiple other results. It's not a 1 for 1 tit for tat game. And to top it off, if we were betting on coin flips, we got to keep in mind that the bet sizing is never equal. If I'm calling a bet on a coin flip and those bets fluctuate, then what possible purpose does calculating variance serve in poker???

[@GokuTheSuperSaiyan1]

I didn't read your full comment, but there are three variables to consider with variance: true winrate, standard deviation of the game you're in, and sample size Having a high true winrate, as well as playing on tables of poker where the standard deviation in results is lower, is mathematically the best thing you can do