[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
this is wrong because there are fewer possible outcomes to the hand the shorter your stack is.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in both cases, the range of possible results is from winning $100 to losing $100.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm trying to help you to understand that the range of possible outcomes is much more tightly centered around your expected value, thus lowering variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the possible outcomes are more granular with the smaller stacks doesn't change the likelihood over the entire range. In fact, the middle of the range isn't even possible at 10/20. Winning exactly $1 when the big blind folds to a raise is easily the most common result when playing $100 at .5/1, but that can't even happen at 10/20.

What does change is that the full $100 is going to go in the middle more often at 10/20 than at 0.5/1. Playing an individual hand for $100 stacks is going to happen *MUCH* more frequently if the blinds are $10/$20 than if the blinds are 0.5/$1, and hitting the upper ends of the ranges more frequently is practically the definition of higher variance, is it not?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Open-pushing with A5 is a high variance move.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is true if and only if the stacks are deep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry if it seems like I'm arguing with you at every point and every turn, but...well, I guess I am.

If your opponent calls with the same range whether you're 100BB deep or 5BB deep, the results are the same no matter how deep the stacks are. You're going to win a full stack or lose a full stack in both situations, with the same percentages, and both results are at the very outside of the range of possibilities that existed before you pushed with A5.

Now, the fact of the matter is that an opponent is going to call a lot tighter 100BB deep than he will 5BB deep, but that doesn't mean the move has a higher variance when you're 100BB deep. There are still only two possibilities, both at the absolute outside of the range. You either lose a full stack or win a full stack. It just means that the move is stupid, and probably -EV, because you lose the full $100 stack much more often when you do get called.

[ QUOTE ]
what i was trying to demonstrate is that a player can easily win half a buyin or more in a single hand, when his edge on any given hand is a fraction of a single big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you said this is more likely to happen at cash than in a tournament, which I'm not sure I agree with. Tournaments are made up of single hands just like a cash session is, and taking half of your opponents chips in a tournament is basically equivalent to taking half their chips on a cash table. (minus the obvious reload differences, where the fact that he can't reload in the tournament should be offset by the fact that you *can* reload if you lose at cash, increasing your chances of winning back what you lost, assuming you are in fact a better player, while also reducing the need for desparation plays when you get low)

I also think you're trying to make direct comparisons between a 60% winrate and a 10ptbb/100hands winrate at cash. This comparison may or may not be valid, but to make the comparison, you'd have to be able to say with some amount of assuredness that a player with a 60% winrate at HUSNGs is as profitable as a player who consistently makes 10ptbb/100 hands, which is a statement that I think would be very difficult to make.

I'm not really even sure what "just as profitable" means in this context. $/hr? If that's the case, then 10bb/100hands isn't even close for the same buyin amount, because a 60% winrate leads to winning an average of a buyin about every 7 games, and it's not out of the question to get 7 games in every hour, single-tabling turbos.

So a player playing $100 sngs at 60% makes $100 an hour. A 10bb/100 player playing $100NL, assuming 200 hands per hour (which I think is slightly generous, but I've seen tables hit 170 or 180 on full tilts stats fairly regularly), is going to make $20 an hour.

But if you can't make that statement, then trying to draw a line between the two (for example, trying to guess how often a 10pt/100 player will be playing for their entire stack, and trying to compare that rate to how often a husng player plays for their entire stack) isn't necessarily meaningful.

Please don't take any of this as a personal attack. I like to think that I'm at least moderately intelligent and capable of understanding fairly deep concepts, but none of what you're saying makes any sense, and I'd either like to understand or at convince myself that conventional wisdom is wrong in this case.