[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
you're a troll, i'm done with you

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL

Give me a break.

You *GAVE* variance formulas for a 100bb stack and a 10bb stack.

[ QUOTE ]

10bb case.
var=3*((20-12)^2)+2*((0-12)^2)=192+288=480
std dev=21.9bb/hand

100bb case
var=3*((200-120)^2)+2*((0-120)^2)=48000
std dev=219bb/hand


[/ QUOTE ]

So, 21.9bb/hand vs 219bb/hand.

Your formulas are in terms of big blinds (which is perfectly reasonable). From there, this is a simple substitution problem. Plug in the value of the BB.

If there's a $10 stack and a $100 stack both playing 0.5/1, then the std dev of the 10BB hand is $21.90, and the std dev of the 100BB stack is $219. The std dev for the 100BB stack is 100x that of the 10bb stack. This is expected.

If there's a $100 stack playing 0.5/1 (100BBs - player A), and a $100 stack playing $5/$10 (10BBs - player B), then the std dev for player A is (219 * 1), or $219, but the std dev for player B is (21.9 * 10), or $219.

In the first case, the std devs are wildly different, with the 100BB stack having 100x the std deviation of the 10BB stack.

In the second case, they are exactly the same.

You're acting like these two situations are identical ("it shouldn't matter") when your own math proves that they are not identical. (it matters)

It's your formulas, your math. I just substituted the real values in, to show why a $100 100BB stack compared to a $10 10BB stack is *not* the same as a $100 100BB stack compared to a $100 10BB stack.

You can't interpret your own results, and *I* am the troll. That's rich.

You're making the most basic of mathematical errors, and either don't see the mistake after having it pointed out a dozen times in half a dozen different ways, or are simply unwilling to admit that everything you've said so far is incorrect because of this one basic mistake. Even your counterpoints to what would have been my two basic arguments are based on this invalid assumption that all 100bb vs 10bb situations are equal, despite the fact that a 6th grader could prove that they are not.

So, you're right. We are most definitely done here. But not for the reason you think.