[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
so small stack poker has inherently less variance than big stack poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to reread that.

If we were talking about a $100 100BB stack compared to a $20 20BB stack, you would be correct.

Since we're actually talking about a $100 100BB stack that turns into a $100 10BB stack (which is what happens in HUSNGS), here's the relevant part of that quote

[ QUOTE ]
If you play the $100 as a 50bb stack in a $1-$2 game, your variance will be higher than if you play the $100 as a 200bb stack in a $.25-$.50 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
as the blinds rise the individual tournament often becomes subject to higher variance but not because the stacks are shorter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, because the stacks are shorter. Read the quote again. I really don't understand the difficulty here. If your $100 is worth 10BB, and my $100 is worth 100BB, your swings are obviously going to be bigger than mine, because I will have many hands where a couple dollars are exchanged. You won't have *any* hands where anything less than $10 is exchanged, and you will exchange $100 *far* more often than I will.

[ QUOTE ]
winrate is generally independent of variance of individual hands in a cash game. two players may have identical winrates but nonidentical variance or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your winrate in a HUSNG is *directly* related to the "variance" of the game itself. (I'm going to start using variance in quotes whenever I'm talking about the size of the actual swings in your bankroll, to try to avoid confusion about a term that is apparently being used to mean a few different things)

If you think of the 1500 tournament chips as your bankroll, when you swing up high enough, the tournament is over and you win. When you swing down low enough, the tournament is over and you lose.

Winning or losing a $100 sng is very much like sitting down with $100 at a cash table. You can play a high-variance style in either, but decisions that are correct at a cash table are also correct in a HUSNG. The main difference is that at SNGs, you only win or lose in increments of one buyin.

[ QUOTE ]
after one hundred hands

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're playing a much different crowd than I am, many HUSNGs are over well before the hundred hand mark.

If you're going to make comparisons, at least make them equitable comparisons.

[ QUOTE ]
at std dev of only 100bb/100 you can expect to have gone broke 34% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is less often than you go broke playing the single sit-n-go. Which lends support to the idea that cash is lower variance than sngs. What percentage of the time do you double your $100? Less than 60% of the time? What exactly are you trying to convince me of again?

[ QUOTE ]
this example uses an UNREASONABLY SMALL std deviation from the winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. Come up with a percentage from a fair std deviation, and a reasonable winrate, since I think we both agree that 10BB/100 hands is not even remotely comparable to a 60% winrate at SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
take two husng players, a $5 player and a $50 player, they both have a winrate of 57%. by your definition, the $50 player experiences higher variance because he has larger monetary swings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. This is obvious and elementary enough that I didn't actually think it was necessary to point out that when I'm talking about getting specific $ amounts, it would be relative to a specific bankroll amount, though.

If you want to express that as a percentage of the bankroll rather than a dollar amount at a specific point in a specific bankroll, feel free. But you haven't done that, either. All you've done is say "cash is higher variance" without giving any sort of backing logic or math, while I've attempted half a dozen times to give logical trains of thought that provide evidence that cash is not actually higher variance, bits of logic that you haven't actually even attempted to poke any holes into other than by basically saying "you're wrong", and making absurd claims like "shortstack poker is lower variance" while completely ignoring the actual situation under discussion, which is *clearly* a higher-variance situation. If the swings at cash are going to be bigger than the swings at SNGs, then lets see some numbers.

When I say something like:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It should be painfully obvious that there has to be an actual bankroll amount (in dollar amounts) that goes with those variance swings, and that a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll is not the same as a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll.

Even if I don't have a complete grasp on all the underlying mathematics (but I do program computers for a living, and I'm pretty damned good at it because I have a strong sense of logic, and I did make it through some fairly advanced math courses before I dropped out of college, so I probably grasp more than you seem to be giving me credit for here)...

I do actually understand the basics, and frankly I'm getting just a little bit tired of being talked down to.

Maybe we could tone the assumption of superiority down a little? Because you're starting to sound more and more like a student taking his first statistics course. Which, from what I gather, is exactly what you are.