HU Cash Bankroll Question ! NLCASH

[SwingVelvet]

I’ve looked through the FAQs and did not find a definitive # of hands of HU Cash after which you can establish an accurate winrate (PTBB/100 hands).

I know in 6-max, they generally say 50k hands, but since variance is lower in HU, what does that mean for sample size? Are 25k hands enough, 10k?

Maybe some HU Cash veteran can post some results or winrates so I can get an idea of what is reasonable/attainable?

If I missed some post already containing this, please link.

Thanks!

[Al_Money]

Variance is much higher in HU compared to 6 max, and it's not close.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
but since variance is lower in HU

[/ QUOTE ]
Variance in HU cash should be higher than 6-max cash.

In freezeout tournaments, variance goes down with the number of entrants, but in cash, variance increases with the number of entrants.

[SwingVelvet]

can you please explain?

[SwingVelvet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but since variance is lower in HU

[/ QUOTE ]
Variance in HU cash should be higher than 6-max cash.

In freezeout tournaments, variance goes down with the number of entrants, but in cash, variance increases with the number of entrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

and the reasons for this?

[TNixon]

Because as the number of players goes down, you enter into more marginal situations for bigger pots.

6-max cash is higher variance than full ring because of this, and HU cash is even higher than 6-max.

In freezeout tournaments, variance decreases with the number of players because you win more often, and therefore more consistently. For example, if you were to play 10 person winner-take-all tourneys, the "average" player is going to win one in ten. But it will be very likely to have big strings of losses without any wins, leading to wider swings in your bankroll. HU, the "average" player wins 50% of the time, so big strings of consecutive losses are less likely, and consecutive wins are just double your buyin, rather than 10x your buyin, leading to smaller swings overall.

Now, if you want to compare cash to tournaments, then I've put out what I feel like is a very credible (but controversial to say the least) theory that HU CASH should be lower variance than HU SNGs at the same buyin, which would mean that as far as variance goes, MTTs > 9 person SNGs > 6 person SNGs, > HUSNGs > HUCASH > 6 max cash > full ring cash, so if you really want to minimize your variance, full ring cash should be the way to go, but that's another story entirely.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[hra146]

Very neat TN although I wouldnt bother too much explaining since all of this is in the sticky and/or the archives.

Your variance food-chain however is pretty interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
MTTs > 9 person SNGs > 6 person SNGs, > HUSNGs > HUCASH > 6 max cash > full ring cash

[/ QUOTE ]


But to make it clear I guess you mean to distinguish between tournaments and cashgames, right? As in:

MTTs > 9 person SNGs > 6 person SNGs, > HUSNGs

AND

HUCASH > 6 max cash > full ring cash

[TNixon]

Well, that depends on whether you buy into HUCASH being lower variance than HUSNGs. I believe it's true, and believe I constructed some very logical arguments, and mathematical evidence that it should be true (and everybody that was arguing with me came in with math that didn't even make sense, or tried to "simplify" the problem in ways that changed the questions entirely), but I never was able to get anybody to commit any data in order to figure out if reality matched the theory.

But if HUCASH is lower variance than HUSNGs, it would follow that the entire chain as I presented it would be correct, and that full ring cash would be the lowest variance form of poker, period.

The funny part of this is that I moved to HUSNGs because I was able to mathematically prove to myself that, as long as I was willing to move up and down when necessary (and as long as I was actually a winning player), that the risk of ruin playing HUSNGs was small enough that you could safely play 7-10 buyins as a means of aggressively building a bankroll. When I compared this to recommended buyin counts and average winrates for pretty much every other form of poker, HUSNGs appeared to be a very low risk way of playing with a relatively high payoff when being a little bit loose with the bankroll. So I came to HUSNGs looking for a way to minimize my variance while attempting to aggressively build a bankroll.

Now I know better, but am willing to accept the tradeoffs for the higher overall potential hourly rate. Add that to the fact that I discovered I really enjoy playing heads-up, and I'm stuck. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jay_shark]

Tnixon's conjecture looks correct to me .

I can actually prove why this is true , but I don't think I want to bore anyone [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
I can actually prove why this is true

[/ QUOTE ]
Wtf? You were one of the people arguing with me in the original thread(s) on the topic, and one of the two people who tried to "simplify" the problem by changing it entirely.

As a matter of fact, in the end, I presented math that basically was equivalent to "see, 100 really is greater than 10, duh", which is what I really had been saying all along (and got *vehement* arguments about, both from you and one other person who didn't even want to be associated with the thread anymore), and you responded with "so you agree with me now?"

wow.

"wtf" doesn't really even come close to covering my confusion at this moment in time.