Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BlueNowhere, post: 1859481, member: 83460"] Just played somebody and looked him up, confirmed loser HU and his recent HU games were $3.50 hypers. Even if they played $1.50 games I don't known about (min stake) how do they have so little variance over 200 games? [IMG]http://pokerprolabs.com/topsharkpro/graph/TotalProfitByGamesPlayed?id=48979975&pnid=1&tt=4&c=en-US&period=2012&w=256[/IMG] My graph over similar sample size at same stake for comparison of variance: [IMG]http://pokerprolabs.com/topsharkpro/graph/TotalProfitByGamesPlayed?id=48631491&pnid=1&tt=4&c=en-US&period=2012&w=256[/IMG] It got me thinking, do bad player suffer from less variance than winning players? Lets say I have a 5% ROI and they have a -5%, logic would say that their graph would be a mirror image if mine, yes? Surely they should suffer the same level of variance just in reverse. If I win 30BI and lose 25BI in consecutive sessions they should be the opposite, should they not. [/QUOTE]