[Closed] Why FL? (FR/SH)

We are sado-masochists.

The mathematical approach of the game. The possibility to chase draws with good odds vs monsters. The fishines of players on SH, that call with 2 cards just to hit the 2 or 3 pair that makes the game so +EV. There is much in FL that makes it as profitable as other limits. You don't have the omfg big pots of NL, that make your day when you win them. About the win without SD, that's the whole point of FL and especially SH, knowing when to calldown with second or third pair, or even A high with reads on opponent, knowing when WA/WB will be more profitable than the agressive aproach. It is a very complex game with much more play and involvment in the hand.

If you can endure the swings on FLSH, you can endure anything... except Omaha. They turn you into a mean, calculating, cold son-of-a-bitch

Besides that it's awfully fun when you're winning.

Why NL? After all the initial played hold'em was limit!
I like to think it helps to make a mix between any sort of hold'em. One game helps the other to some extent. How much does it take a NL player to figure out what odds do you have with a hand like 2 overcards+runner runner straight and flush draws at the lower levels? (yes you rarely need this but still...) Maybe sng's can help you steal some blinds and you can use something about being agressive and using implied odds from NL and put them in FL.

Originally posted by CoreySteel
We are sado-masochists.

This!

Originally posted by Ejeckt
If you can endure the swings on FLSH, you can endure anything...

And this!

edit: yeah; i know my posts are full of new info all the time

Originally posted by One12ver
I always wonder what keeps the die hard FL players playing FL?

Because it's a more beautiful game than other types. NL is more a pre-flop game. A lot of NL hands are won before the flop. There is more post-flop play in limit and I can play looser than in NL. And playing looser is more fun.

I'm not a variance specialist but I saw some graphs from some players that play both NL and FL a couple of month ago, and the Standard Deviation from FL was lower than the SD from NL. There are different opinions on who has higher variance, NL or FL, but I think NL is the higher variance game.

Originally posted by adr0001
I'm not a variance specialist but I saw some graphs from some players that play both NL and FL a couple of month ago, and the Standard Deviation from FL was lower than the SD from NL. There are different opinions on who has higher variance, NL or FL, but I think NL is the higher variance game.

You missed the point apparently ^^

let's say you have $7k and you can play NL SH 200 or FL SH 5/10:

- standard deviation in FL SH is about 17BB/100 = $170
- standard deviation in NL is about 44BB/100 (22/18 TAG) = $176

So, SD is more or less the same or, at least, very similar, but the problem is in swings which happens on FL SH... Your edge is MUCH smaller here, so you can expect much higher and deeper swings than in NL.

Variance depends on SD & WR - dont forget that

What is SD and WR?

(woho, 500 posts in 2 months! Soon Im pro!)

Originally posted by opal99
let's say you have $7k and you can play NL SH 200 or FL SH 5/10:

- standard deviation in FL SH is about 17BB/100 = $170
- standard deviation in NL is about 44BB/100 (22/18 TAG) = $176

Your edge is MUCH smaller here, so you can expect much higher and deeper swings than in NL.

Variance depends on SD & WR - dont forget that

I was thinking in BB/100 not in $/100. 17<44 that's why I said variance is lower in limit.

While it's true that variance depends on SD it's not true that variance depends on win-rate.

It's true that because of the low win-rate you are more likely to have more breakeven streaks and big downswings. But it doesn't necessarily mean you have higher variance.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this but I saw the link to this forum in another thread so I suppose I don't break any rules. Read this thread:

http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/4-General-Discussion/25833-variance-question

Edit: with 7k you have 700PTBB for 5/10 FL and you have 1750PTBB for 200NL. The reason you need less PTBB to play FL it's because FL has lower SD and variance.

Originally posted by One12ver
Why do you play FL ?

Because there is a secret FL mafia ♠_cool:

Just my NL point of view ♦

-Jack

Originally posted by kingdippy2008

Originally posted by One12ver
Why do you play FL ?

Because there is a secret FL mafia ♠_cool:

Alright, who broke silence? Legs will be broken.

adr0001: OK, I got your point. Technicaly, you're right so let's call it "more swingy" than NL...

btw: it doesn't matter how much BB/100h your SD is IMO. The important thing is how %'s part of your BR we're talking about.

Originally posted by opal99
btw: it doesn't matter how much BB/100h your SD is IMO. The important thing is how %'s part of your BR we're talking about.

In $/100 the SD is (almost) the same for both type of games and we're talking about the same % part of your BR. By definition, games with equivalent BR requirements have equivalent variance. So we can say that both NL and FL have the same variance at a given bankroll. But because the win-rates are higher in NL, NL players will have less breakeven streaks and are not so likely to have negative WR after playing a given number of hands as a FL player.

Originally posted by adr0001

Originally posted by opal99
btw: it doesn't matter how much BB/100h your SD is IMO. The important thing is how %'s part of your BR we're talking about.

In $/100 the SD is (almost) the same for both type of games and we're talking about the same % part of your BR. By definition, games with equivalent BR requirements have equivalent variance. So we can say that both NL and FL have the same variance at a given bankroll. But because the win-rates are higher in NL, NL players will have less breakeven streaks and are not so likely to have negative WR after playing a given number of hands as a FL player.

exactly

I started with FL, and I have by far the most experience in it than any other format. However, I am another one of those players that wants to "switch" to PLO (I still want to play FL, but also want to devote a lot of my time to PLO). As a poker player I just want to play the game that will yield me the best returns. From what I have read about the current state of poker and people's opinions on PLO, I think that PLO would be a more profitable game for me (ie. the games are apparently way fishier). However, I don't think I will ever stop playing FL in my life. I like the game because I think it's really hard.

I play FL because I think it helps all of my hold'em play (NL and FL). You are put into so many marginal spots where you have to think a lot,... so if you do think, you can't help but become a better overall hold'em player. This being said, I would always devote the most amount of time to the game that I earn the most amount of $$$. Perhaps a lot of players also find that other games are more profitable,... but it is noteworthy that there are lots of people who play $500/$1000 FL, so it must be profitable all the way through to the top.

Variance depends on SD & WR - dont forget that 

Ok, let's make it clear...

The poker game is statistical process. The expected results (ER) can be quatified in expeted winrate (EWR) in BB / 100 hands and with Standard Deviation (SD) (BB/100 hands) or Variance (Variance = square of SD (or SD^2)).

The EWR depends only on your skill, skill of your opponents and rake taken from you. Nothing more.

The Variance or SD depends on card distribution (=hands dealt to you and to your opponents and your game style (LAG has different SD/Variance that TAG), number of players at the table).

Variance / SD describes how far will you be from the EWR. And confidence interval can be set up, as you are in
[EWR - SD, EWR + SD] 70% of the time and in
[EWR - 2SD, EWR + 2SD] 95 % of the time.

Based on your skill (EWR) and SD of the game you play, you need to have bankroll of certain size, so you are sure that you do not go broke (and that is call bankroll management). The size of your BR is set up based on your skill (EWR) and based on probabilistic part of the game (SD).

If your EWR < 0, you will go broke no matter what...

Funktor

Originally posted by funktor
Ok, let's make it clear...

The poker game is statistical process. The expected results (ER) can be quatified in expeted winrate (EWR) in BB / 100 hands and with Standard Deviation (SD) (BB/100 hands) or Variance (Variance = square of SD (or SD^2)).

The EWR depends only on your skill, skill of your opponents and rake taken from you. Nothing more.

The Variance or SD depends on card distribution (=hands dealt to you and to your opponents and your game style (LAG has different SD/Variance that TAG), number of players at the table).

Variance / SD describes how far will you be from the EWR. And confidence interval can be set up, as you are in
[EWR - SD, EWR + SD] 70% of the time and in
[EWR - 2SD, EWR + 2SD] 95 % of the time.

Based on your skill (EWR) and SD of the game you play, you need to have bankroll of certain size, so you are sure that you do not go broke (and that is call bankroll management). The size of your BR is set up based on your skill (EWR) and based on probabilistic part of the game (SD).

If your EWR < 0, you will go broke no matter what...

Funktor

good post!

one thing i'd add is that you should always look at your 'true EWR', including rakeback, bonuses, etc.

these factors will have an effect on your SD too (although for most ppl this effect is negligible). say you have rakeback that's calculated based on the contributed method and you win a pot; you wouldn't only win the the amount of money in the pot but also x% of the rake taken. so basically every time you put money in the pot, the 'true potsize' for you is slightly larger if you end up winning the pot (similarly if you lose the pot, you wouldn't lose 100% of the BBs you put in)
hope this makes sense

Originally posted by opal99

Originally posted by adr0001

Originally posted by opal99
btw: it doesn't matter how much BB/100h your SD is IMO. The important thing is how %'s part of your BR we're talking about.

In $/100 the SD is (almost) the same for both type of games and we're talking about the same % part of your BR. By definition, games with equivalent BR requirements have equivalent variance. So we can say that both NL and FL have the same variance at a given bankroll. But because the win-rates are higher in NL, NL players will have less breakeven streaks and are not so likely to have negative WR after playing a given number of hands as a FL player.

exactly

Actually: Yes winrates are higher in NL in terms of BB/100, but that ignores the BR differences.

However, by stating that NL players will have less breakeven streaks and are not so likely to have negative WR after playing a given number of hands as a FL player, you are indirectly claiming that $/100 with comparable BRM is higher at NL than at FL...

Now I wouldn't know about that, since I never played NL seriously, but I find this a curious thing to claim it just like that...? What are reasonable BB/100 stats of a winning FL 5/10 player and a winning NL200 player then?

FL is the real long run game.

NL and omaha are just short term fashion games ♦

+ some tilted NL switch to FL thinking this game is as easy as bet/bet/bet 3 street and the variance is lower. Then, FL-regs like us catch'em all in no time.