[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
tbh it would make more sense for 100BB+ HUCASH to be lower variance than a sng with the buyin equal to 100BB in the cash game.

you have 75BBs to work with and it decreases as time goes by.

If you forget about rake, playing a $100 + 0 HUSNG (1500 chips) would be equivalent to playing $100HU with a BB of $1.33 (=blind of 15/30)then it goes up to $3.33 (blinds of 25/50) and even up to $13.33 (blinds 100/200).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why it's so important to establish once and for all that a $10 10BB stack is so very different from a $100 10BB stack.

Which is something that omg's math actually proved in the other thread, after the appropriate conversion from one set of bb/hand units to the other.

But that's the point of contention here. That bb/hand is just bb/hand, and you can compare any 2 values without taking into consideration what the blinds actually were when the calculation was made.

I've used up every way I can think of to try to explain why that is false, though. If the distance/second bit wasn't convincing, then probably nothings else can possibly be.

If I thought it would do any good, I would go back through omgs math, and compute everything in $ instead of big blinds, which would clearly show that the $100 100BB stack (at 0.5/1) is much lower variance than the $100 10BB stack (at 5/10).

But how can any mathematical argument possibly work on somebody who refuses to admit that one calculation of bb/hand is not necessarily directly comparable to a separate calculation of bb/hand, if what you're trying to determine is the actual effect on your bankroll.

Still, I'm a little bit surprised that there are two people out there who disagree strongly enough to throw out insults, but not strongly enough to try to pick up what should be the easiest $200 of their lives. I mean, if they're that sure they're right, it's free money, right? Not that I haven't thrown out my fair share, but I'm perfectly willing to put my money where my mouth is. omgwtfnoway already gave me all the formulas I need to prove almost conclusively that the correct choice in the $1k bankroll question is choice A, playing for full buyins at 0.5/1 over 10BB buyins at 5/10.

[ QUOTE ]
none of these formulas take into account the variance of variance. we've all seen people go absolutely crazy esp in heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing at a time...one thing at a time.

It would be a good idea to get a consensus on variance before even considering second-order effects. Not that any such consensus seems likely anytime soon, if ever. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]

qft. I suggest no one say anything even close to the line in this thread because, if you think I'm going to go back and try to figure out if you were provoked, you've lost your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol.

Fair enough. I am trying to be a good little boy in this one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry about the verbosity and the long series of posts everybody, but obviously I'm trying every possible approach to prove something that *should* be obviously true to anybody who thinks about it for just a minute.

Obviously I just type too fast, or I wouldn't be able to put nearly as much up in the short periods of time that I have been.

:/