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.

[SwingVelvet]

can you please explain?

[Al_Money]

[ QUOTE ]
can you please explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in more marginal situations, more often.

[jakeduke]

tnixon, jay,

I don't know if this will help your discussion any, but my SD for my last 50k hands (about 40K @ 100NL and 10k@ 200NL) is 59.1ptbb/100 according to PT.

[TNixon]

ok jay, since more than happy to admit I'm out of my element here (and I'm lazy besides):

Lets see some std dev calcs for various winrates at HUSNGs.

Obviously a sample size of 1 isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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]

[ 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