
The last few days have been pretty rough for me. I've been trying to play cash games and SNG's, but I'm either very terrible or been catching the bad side of variance (both of which are probably true).
Honestly, I think "MTT variance" is one of the biggest misconceptions in poker. Any game where you're able to put in all your chips is extremely high variance from hand to hand, but if that's true, why are we told that NL cash games have less variance than limit cash games? I think it's just better to say that you see how often you can get your money in way ahead, and if you ever lose one of those (for all your chips), you bust.
In cash games, you rebuy when you lose your stack. Let's say you can get your money in ahead 75/25. So you can go win, win, win, lose/rebuy, lose/rebuy, win, win and be way ahead.
In a tournament, once you lose, all your work is gone. So people say the variance is extremely high because you can play "perfect" poker and not win over a very long period of time.
So what's new? This is rudimentary information and this is why we have to use good bankroll management. I think that, psychologically, MTT's are the easiest for you to play. When you have 200 buyins and lose one, it's almost nothing to shrug it off. When you have 50 buyins for SNG's and play multiples of them, a few things:
1) The losses are significant.
2) The wins are not as significant.
3) Because it's your bankroll divided by 50 instead of your bankroll divided by 100 or even 200, each entry is psychologically a lot more impacting. I'm operating on a $17k bankroll right now, but $109 SNG's are a lot of money to me whereas spending over $100 easily on a $10r is nothing to me.
I think what I'm trying to say is... do what you're comfortable with. You need to find what you like doing and what you're good at doing. So I'll keep donating in cash games from time to time, so find me at the tables when you can.