in my case, i was making stupid call downs that i would NEVER make when playing my A-game. as such, i don't really consider it "variance" as much as "bad play". this particular type bad play is NOT a normal part of my game (perhaps it is over the course of a year, but i think you get my point).
fwiw, i looked over the stats... i would have lost about one buy-in anyway had i folded. furthermore, i did actually have some equity (a flush redraw) in one of the hands, so in sklansky bux, i lost less than a buy-in. again, the amount isn't that big of a deal -- it's just the way i lost it.
finally, a lot of the increased variance in the big games seems to be a byproduct of people pushing and calling with marginal holdings. if one knows how to take advantage of it, then there is a lot of money to be made (e.g., mute). at the 200s and lower, most people only raise with the nuts or a HUGE draw, so you usually should have a good idea of where you're at. this seems to lead naturally to lower variance simply due to the nature of the games -- at least in the way that i play them.
one thing i wanted to mention -- maybe i should start a new thread -- it's amazing to me that so few people will jam with the nut low + nut flush draw on the flop at the 200s and lower. the typical line is to call the flop, fold the turn if it's a blank, call the turn if it makes a low, and bet/raise the turn if it's a flush. in a way, this makes it easier to play against these players, but don't they realize that they have a mathematical edge AND jamming these kinds of pots gives the game a good image to attract more dead money?
ughStatistics: Posted by Kuso — Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:45 pm
]]>