Future of sng's online?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

i agree with FF that sngs arent REAL poker, and thats all i play. Its more like an offshoot of the game with several twists that make correct strategy way less intuitive and more mathematical.
Im pretty sure any good sng pro would feel this way. Cash game is the truest form of poker because $EV = CEV and because you can rebuy as much as you want. No BS blind changes and things, just straightforward balls-in-your-mouth, poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is poker. The difference between $EV and cEV doesn't change the game. It just changes the way that we measure expectation. Blind changes just change our strategy to reflect smaller stack sizes and more dead money in the pot.

You still have to get in your opponents' heads and make reads, which is what makes the game poker.

[FF_Woodycooks]

Is it possible that table selection makes more money on avg in cash than sngs? Finding juicy tables and staying til they go bad, picking up on the moods/tendencies of the players at each table, using very detailed datamined stats. These are all skills you can use in cash and I think they curb some of the swings.

[blackize]

Table selection affects your winrate. In SNGs this doesn't change your winrate as much because your winnings are still capped.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But winrate isn't everything. I could be a 150% ROI big live MTT player and still go negative for a year. That's more variance. Whereas if my expectation is to have 150% more money than I started after 3 days of playing cash or SNGs, I'm never going to lose money on a year.

[braminc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.



[/ QUOTE ]

are you joking? YOU are gonna tell ME what variance is based on playing 3thousand 11 dollar sngs? thats just funny...

i really dont appreciate being told i dont understand what variance is. since its all i think about while playing, and im pretty sure i understand it better than 99% of poker players, and definitely better than you do.

oh, and youre WRONG, that sng has lower variance than cash. period.

[blackize]

Braminc,

You're mistaking the term variance for the term swings.

Variance has been mathematically defined in this thread. It's standard deviation squared. Standard deviation per SNG is about 1.5 buyins regardless of the stakes you play or your winrate. Note that this is a very small number. Cash game SD for a winning player is usually about 70BB/100. Note that this is a very large number.

This means that the SNG player's results stay closer to his expectation than a cash player's.

[ QUOTE ]

are you joking? YOU are gonna tell ME what variance is based on playing 3thousand 11 dollar sngs? thats just funny...

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta love the personal attacks. The stakes or number of games I play have no bearing on my understanding of the definition of variance. Your numbers are also wrong, but that has no place here.

[ QUOTE ]

oh, and youre WRONG, that sng has lower variance than cash. period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not back that up with some math then?

It has been calculated before on these forums and it is widely accepted that SNGs are about the lowest variance form of poker that there is, so your baseless claims carry no weight until you decide to back them up with some math.

[suzzer99]

blackzie, I like you and your posts. But you have it completely backwards. Cash has lower variance than sngs given the same winrate. Your results are more granular in cash (hands vs. 1 sng) so over the course of a session you're going to be more likely to converge on your true winrate.

This is pretty well accepted by most on this forum I believe. I could be wrong, someone PM the heavy hitters and get them to weigh in.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
how do you 1 table the 6.50s with $60?

[/ QUOTE ]

[braminc]

blackize, your just making yourself look kinda dumb.

cash is lowest variance. i promise. and if you think swings are different from variance, than your saying that you can have bigger 'swings' at sngs than cash, but lower variance in sngs...?

the personal attack was based on the fact that your lecturing me about variance with far too little experience to warrant it and i DONT APPRECIATE IT.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


the personal attack was based on the fact that your lecturing me about variance with far too little experience to warrant it and i DONT APPRECIATE IT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this discussion should have nothing to do with experience and everything to do with math. And if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it being shown mathematically rather than anecdotally.

But dealing anecdotally:

Using Tourney Manager and Hold'em Manager to sort my results by session I'm looking at my hourly playing SNGs over the last 3k games and playing cash over the last 40k hands.

Now for a session in SNGs my hourly fluctuates between +/- 5x my actual(and for this purpose, true) hourly.

For a session in cash my hourly fluctuates between +/- 20x my actual(and for this purpose, true) hourly.