Confidence allows you to handle variance.

If we flip a coin and I pay you $1.05 every time it lands heads and you pay me $1 every time it lands tails and we can play 20-50 flips a day, you would keep flipping coins with me, confident you had an edge, correct?

These games are the same.  You should play a level you have an edge at.  If you're unsure of that due to sample size or a general lack of confidence, take a look at a coach or a peer and get feedback.  Trust them.  Because much like flipping that coin, you'll run bad many times in poker and it will test your confidence.  But have faith, because as long as you keep playing a winning strategy each and every game, you'll be winning a lot in the long run.

The best way to reduce downswing variance is to have a bigger edge.  The best way to do that is to play a lot of focused games and utilize every type of material available to you (friends, videos, coaches, articles, etc.) along the way.  Don't focus on any style.  A 3x raise or limping "style" should not be what you're thinking about.  You should be thinking about how your opponent plays and what is best against that specific opponent.  Therein lies the real edges in heads up sngs. 

You can win minraising 100% of hands against every single opponent in heads up sngs at any blind level probably, at least up until high stakes games.  That doesn't mean it's the strategy that wins you the most money.  So don't berate or look down on people that brag about their "system" or "style" of play.  Use those people to learn from.  Find their weaknesses, find their strengths, but be confident that you're a winner and it'll take a very large downswing to hurt you mentally.

Okay, thanks a lot sir.
In my point of view, taking a break is the biggest bs you can do during a bad run,
because the odds will even out anyway, break or not. Right?
But what about moving down when you are running bad? The odds will even out,
but you will be losing a lot less money.. Or am I being stupid?

A break always helps my game, saying it is bullshit is 100% wrong in my opinion. During a downswing you will likely be making worse decisions without even realizing it and with a break you should almost always find yourself coming back more clear headed and focused.

After playing only HUSNGs for the past couple of months I've learned that you are going to take some horrible beats on a regular basis. It sucks but if you put in enough volume the odds will eventually play out. I used to be in the mind frame that "I never suck out how come everyone else does" but if you think about it, the less your sucking out the more your getting it in ahead which is all that matters in the long run. Not to imply that I don't get pissed when QQ loses to K3o but I have won way more in that situation than I've lost.

Schnitzel, Newff is correct.

Unless the downswing does not hurt your decision making, breaks/moving down are usually a good idea.

But say I have a $5000 bankroll and I'm playing the $10s and variance does not bother me at all.

In that case, as long as I'm a winning player, I would never take an out of the ordinary break or move down due to experiencing bad luck, because as you said, my expectation remains the same (and positive).

If you lose five 70-30s in a row, the 6th 70-30 still gives you a 70% chance of winning :)

Well, if you want to reduce variance then you could play Regular Speed games instead of Turbos.

However, the downside of this is that I'll reduce your Hourly since you can play less games per hour.  I did this in late February, but quickly started to feel boring - playing a fish for half an hour to win some $3-$4.5 on average per game really suck, and getting sucked out after 29 minutes hurts even more.

"Repetition is the mother of all skill"

Usually taking a break works well for me. Thing is that I personally get more frustrated when the sneaky variance kicks in.

For example, you're bluffcatching with A6o on a A38,J, villain leads flop,turn,river with 87 and spikes a 7on the river or something. Or the sneaky variance where you hit the top of people's ranges like all the time. Thats variance that won't be displayed but it is the killing kind because if make the correct play vs the right range (combined with tendencies.meta etc etc etc) but he just happens to have the absolute top 5% of that range leaving you cripled this is what makes or breaks the game.

Very good point.

I just realized in today's session how scared I've been in the past - today it seemed like everything was back to normal again, like I tried to get some thin value on the river even after the board got very scary and fish called with absolutely ridiculous holdings - whereas in the past, I sometimes even checked back top set on the river just because some flush was possible.

It is so very important not to let any bad beats take any negative effects on your game as this can so badly hurt your winrate.

Rypac - If you lose five 70-30s in a row, the 6th 70-30 still gives you a 70% chance of winning :)

 nope. its not

its still 70 to 30 but the prob. that 6th 70-30 will fall on that "30" is not "30" if u understood what i said. say 50-50 coinflip. the prob. of tails is 50 1st time, but the prob. that 2nd time coin will fall tails is 25%.

so its not

It's always 70-30, no matter how many times you play.

If the 30% still hit on the 7th time it's variance. It could be possible to lose 100x 70-30 but it might be accurate at 1000x wher you win 700-300 although you lost your first 100 games.

The percentages don't change. They are always the same.

If your theory is right, I would make millions playing roulette with only betting low to check the odds and then betting very high because the odds are getting better the more I play, you understand? :)

my internet is slow atm i clicked multiple times xD

.

Have you ever heard the expression "the cards (or dice, whatever) have no memory"? Do a search for the law of independent trials...it's the same concept.  Using your coin-flipping example, the chance of having it land on tails twice IS 25%.  That comes from both flips, each with a 50% chance: .50 x .50 = .25 . 

The coin doesn't remember if it landed on heads last time or the last ten times...it just falls down and lands on one side or the other half the time.

given that the bankroll you are playing with is never infinite, what would be the point of playing roulette if it was?, it is still -EV to play 

the cap is because they dont like variance either. 

They have a post like this on all forum ... 

They have no miracle answer !!! This is poker  !! This is the game !! This is The life !! 

Can i accept this fact  ? 

I dont think roulette will be +EV even with no cap and unlimited bankroll. An infinite amount of -EV bets does not add up to being +EV.

It does when you can increase your bet size to recoup previous losses.

Bet on Red/Black?

Lose $100? Oh well Bet $200 next time, lose again? Oh well, $500 this time, lost again? I'll bet $1,500 please. Oh Look I won $1,500

Minus the 100,200,500 from previous losses is still $700 profit.

Each individual bet being -EV has nothing to do with it.

Wouldn't it still be -EV?

The only thing would change is the win/loss distribution, right?

IE 99.9% of the time you would chase some small losses and get a small gain in the end.  But that .1% of the time would be even more devastating (just think what people do on roulette all the time, but increase it with an infinite bankroll).

Or am I wrong there?

Your EV per spin is always negative but you have have a 100% certainty of making a profit in roulette with an infinite bankroll. But any "profit" is pointless relative to your infinite bankroll, so I wouldnt say playing roulette is +EV, I'd say it is neutral EV and a waste of time for someone with infinite wealth.

You can argue that someone with an infinity bankroll can never lose money at anything nor ever win money at anything :)

The problem with that strategy is that in an infinite sequence of random blacks and reds there will be an infinite subsequence consisting of only reds. When our hypothetical gambler hits that sequence he will never win a bet again :)

I believe Eken is correct.

I think the infinite part is throwing some people off.

Yes, the odds that you lose are much less with a higher cap and higher bankroll.  But the extent of the devastating, rare event negative outcome much worse as that cap and bankroll is heightened.

Think about playing $1 roulette and martingaling with 50 billion dollars.  It's still not +EV, you'll lose all the money in a rare event at some point.  Change that to 5 trillian dollars.  Same thing, you'll lose it all eventually if you play forever and you'll lose money on each spin expectation wise.

Lol, that can be a problem.

This is more a problem of time rather than money. So we would have to say that the player will live forever.Even so, a sequence of infinity (only red) is still not all of infinity (spins) as infinity divided by infinity dosnt equal 1.

Yeah Rypac, anything other that infinite bankroll is negative EV. Infinite bankroll makes roulette neutral EV as infinity minus X is still infinity.