I just played a session of PLO and I experienced what I believe to be the worst amount of variance I've ever experienced. Run bad on top of run bad. In brief, I played 2545 hands and dropped 24 buy-ins. This is 6-max 100bb poker and the games were soft. I suspect I was perhaps the strongest player at the tables.I was not tilting, though I suspect the succession of losses will have affected my winrate a little. However it wasn't a marginal spot, so it made sense to keep on playing.

I usually try to calm myself down by reviewing variance simulations, but this is one of those cases where the variance simulator would say this amount of variance is almost not possible.
Here is a screenshot for a very negative winrate of -6bb/100:

Assuming the game is not rigged, how do you explain the discrepancy to the variance simulator and actual results? I expect 1%ers to happen occasionally (say every 254k hands), but this is less than .1% for a winrate of -6bb/100. My winrate is most likely positive and not negative, so this loss would be way off the charts.

I'm venting here a bit, this is not supposed to be a poker is rigged or anything like that post, I'm just generally interested what others think of runs like this.

Edit:

Actually I like to look at this graph by Altshuller when I run like this:

This is him winning 10bb/100 over 100k hands on Pokerstars. I just noticed that he also managed to lose 24 buy-ins in less than 4k hands, which given his presumably positive winrate is also quite impressive and should "not be possible" according to a variance simulator.