[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only meaningful measure of variance is how big the average swings in your bankroll are, relative to the average winrate. At some point, you *have* to reduce it to $ comparisons, or it's all meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

these two sentences are contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?

The only thing I, and most of the people in this forum want to know about variance is how it affects our bankrolls. The only way to measure that in a way that I care about is in $. If you want to compare the variance between HUSNGs and HUCASH, the only meaningful comparison in this context is in real dollar amounts.

There may be a misunderstanding there, but there's certainly no contradiction.

And if none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the mathematical definition of variance, then pretend I've been using some other term, because this is the only one I know, and it's the term everybody uses when talking about the effects on their bankroll.

The original question was about comparing HUSNGs and HUCASH, which still hasn't really been touched on except for you claiming "HUCASH is higher variance" without giving any real logical or mathematical backing to your statement, except for arguments that don't make sense themselves, like saying that small-stack poker is lower variance than deep-stack poker, which is an absolutely absurd claim unless we're talking right past each other.

[ QUOTE ]
middle growth line=winrate? we're talking about variance, it has very little to do with winrate in the context of cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. That was a half-formed thought that I shouldn't have thrown out without more effort. And it's been about 3 million years since I took any statistics classes, and I didn't really pay attention even then, so you'll have to forgive my complete ignorance of terminology.

The thought there, though, is that there is going to be some amount of swing in the bankroll. Those swings should center around the "real" bankroll growth rate.

Actually, in attempting to explain what I was thinking, I've just realized how truly silly the thought was to begin with. The slower growth rate doesn't have any effect at all on the magnitude of the swings, which should have been painfully obvious the first time around. The slower growth rate just means that you'd have to *really* like cash games over HUSNGs to justify playing them if, in fact, the variance really is higher in cash games of equivalent buyins.

[ QUOTE ]
i never said these two winrates were equivalent in any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seemed to me that you were trying to draw at least implicit comparisons between the two, using the winrates. If I've read too much into what you were saying (and it sounds like I have), then I apologize.

[ QUOTE ]
i'd recommend that you read mathematics of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this, and where can I find it. Article? Book? Is it called "Mathematics of Poker"?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found the book on Amazon. I'll pick it up and give it a look. But even without the mathematical backing, you're still saying things that don't make sense logically, particularly in comparisons between short and deepstack poker, which is the area that's got me most convinced that sngs are higher variance, or at least very close, because you spend so much time playing small-stack poker, especially in turbos.