Future of sng's online?

[K䲰䮥n]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would actually want to hear opinions on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it's because in a 9 man SnG you're limited by 4 possible outcomes:
Lose $55
Win $45 profit
Win $80 profit
Win $170 profit

with no inbetweens and a cap on the amount you can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is "it"? (real question)

[braminc]

please excuse me if this is faulty logic (but im stoned and its making sense atm):

it doesnt matter that theres a cap on what you can win and lose at sngs. you can play as many sngs as you want and win or lose as much as you have.
you could say the same thing in cash when referring to one buyin.

the reason i think sngs have higher variance is that if your a great snger at a mid-high buyin, you cant win much more than ~40% of your games (getting ITM) whereas in cash a winning player should theoritically win over 50% of their sessions in the long run.

This should mean that with two winning players of equal advantage over their oppenents, the cash game player will stay closer to his true roi (bb/100) than the sng player because the exact, predetermined payouts of the sng structure less accurately represent the equity that was 'earned'.

another good reason sngs probably have a higher variance, is that youre essentially forced to take slightly -EV moves in many situations where waiting will only bring you even lower EV opportunities.

while both styles should even out eventually, it takes much longer to find your true roi in sngs than in cash (bb/100)


another important factor to consider when discussing variance, is that the lower your roi or bb/100 is THE GREATER YOUR VARIANCE IS.

Playing low limit sngs OR cash, variance won't play a huge roll for a good player since you can pull a 15-20% roi somewhat easily. (depending on how many tables your playing...)

Scraping out a 7% roi at the 60s brings LOTS of [censored] variance with it, which is what im basing my thoughts on.

[LeadbellyDan]

Maybe im just really lucky but in my experience if you have a good roi then variance is tiny in SnGs.

[suzzer99]

I think it's pretty well agreed upon that variance is lower in cash. SNGs are a little more like MTTs in that you can have a big rush where you win all your money, then a whole lot of meh. If you miss that big rush a couple times in a row you can have a really nasty downswing on your hands.

[reno expat]

umm...variance has to be huge. In a 9 man sng, you have 4 posibilities. You can finish down one buy-in, up .65 buy-ins, up 1.475 buy-ins or up 3.125 buy-ins. If your long term result is to be +.1 buy-ins per game (a 10% roi) it should be clear why any given set of games has a very low chance of converging to the long term results, this is why there is so much more variance in SNGs. If you have a high enough ROI, it might not feel like there is variance because even when you preform below expectation you are winning, but given that there are only 4 possible outcomes it should always take a long time to converge to any long term ROI.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
please allow me to chime in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think there are lots of overrated SNGers from the party days who simply havent adjusted well to the change of the games. Suzzer speaks like one of those people

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there are those people and some of them even write books and get published. Suzzer is NOT one of those people, he be good...

[suzzer99]

Thanks Strega. FYI - I think my game has become completely adjusted to the weekends. I induced/snapped off so many bluffs this weekend it was insane. I would get crushed playing like that during the week.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

Scraping out a 7% roi at the 60s brings LOTS of [censored] variance with it, which is what im basing my thoughts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't know what variance is.

Edited for Devin: Bah, over simplified I guess. Winrate does affect variance, but for SNGs its affect is mostly negated because of the payout structure. The payout structure limits wins/losses which causes our results not to stray very far from the mean making variance in SNGs very small.

Here is Irieguy's post on the subject.
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 9 man sng, you have 4 posibilities. You can finish down one buy-in, up .65 buy-ins, up 1.475 buy-ins or up 3.125 buy-ins. If your long term result is to be +.1 buy-ins per game (a 10% roi) it should be clear why any given set of games has a very low chance of converging to the long term results, this is why there is so much more variance in SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

No this is why there is LESS variance in SNGs. Your actual results never stray too far from your expectation.

[DevinLake]

Ummm...I'm no expert, but variance is tied to your winrate.

Variance = standard deviation squared. You're standard deviation is going to be tied to your win rate and the payout structure.