Poker Perambulation

It is something we seek and it is something we sometimes fear. On the plus side, our joy is unbounded; go the other way and it leads to Poker Blog Angst.

Variance is usually seen as player quality neutral. It happens to the very best and the very worst. Some seek it and some seek to avoid it. And, even there, quality isn’t a defining factor.

Among those that seek to avoid it is the multi-tabling, limit grinder. He’s happy making a few big bets of profit over the course of an hour. At the other end of the spectrum is the crowd at the PLO 200-400 table at Full Tilt.

It really relates to comfort level. Comfort level is often a reciprocal of variance. So, what’s a guy to do at times? We go with the flow – whatever that means. Frankly, I don’t seek a lot of variance. Yet, it seems to find me. Comfort though I can control.

That may be a matter of my table selection prowess or lack there of. I really don’t do a whole lot in the area. It has gotten a bit more useful because of notes. But, my records show I have played over 2,100 different individuals at the stud tables. I’d hate to guess the numbers, if I were playing Hold’em instead. We always talk about the shrink from the UIGEA action but the numbers stay pretty solid. It runs from ships in the night to regular encounters.

Comfort level and variance do seem so related at times. As we progress, that diminishes but never goes away. Even then, some tables make it more pronounced. Good play can take on patterns. Not where we look predictable but where we’re using the value bets and controlling action. One day we appreciate the aggressors who seek to disrupt and others… <grimace>

There are all kinds of variance. We normally think of our bankroll when the term gets thrown out. That is important but at times that’s less than we should acknowledge. The coolers and heaters are beyond our control. But, we do control our choices and that affects things in a way we should consistently control.

If we look at all the varieties of variance in our poker life on an ongoing basis, we’ll not only be more comfortable but more profitable.

ADDENDUM:

It has been a bit silly playing. I am a bit silly at sitting. I play pretty much any table as I’ve mentioned. I’ve done it at 4 levels with more emphasis on the bottom up. I select by getting the first table with an opening in my range, usually. If I’m feeling better than usual about my game I include the higher two. I have, again, been losing my ass at the dollar table and have killed otherwise. What, you ask! Well, I’m somewhat profitable on them, anyway. It is the yo-yo in my raise to fame a fortune. I win on three and lose one. I fear I am fixating on this disparity.

As to table selection, there is usually a good deal of that at .25-50. Of late I’ve tried the tables that are more conservative. That isn’t usually going to impress. It is often a 40% table instead of the 60% one. And it is great if the pots are smaller on the ‘tight’ table. The idea has been that I’ve identified a table where people might occasionally fold between door and river. Where I might be able to isolate with a raise instead of build a pot they’ll all chase. Glenda made me consider trying it. It seems to have worked but that’s not an empirical study and is counter the general view on table selection.

*****************

Clearspine, JB, and I seem to have hijacked Linda’s welcome thread in her Chris Forum. Join the insurrection here.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm and is filed under Journal. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.