Re: A plea to omgwtfnoway (re the variance thread blowup)
I agree of course that a $10 stack at NL100 has a smaller variance than a $100 stack at NL1000. But I have a problem with one of your assumptions, and disagree that a $100 stack at NL100 has a lower variance than a $10 stack at NL100. The assumption that variance is dictated by only the average pot and the edge.
I would like to add (or rather replace average pot with) the spread in size of the pots, which is hard/impossible to find without some sort of observation.
I tried explaining why it must be so in my previous post in this thread under "Why big stacks have higher variance than shortstacks.", but I explained it pretty poorly.
|