Finally, a useful conclusion drawn in the variance thread! NL

[TNixon]

Leader, delete this if you feel it's wholly inappropriate, but there's been so much useless argument going on in there, that I feel there are likely to be a lot of people who have given up on it entirely.

But this post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

Contains what I believe are very useful (and at least partially surprising) conclusions, and I've invited anybody who is willing from the probability forum to come look and comment (with a specific invitation to one of the mods over there who helped me get the final duck in line with the others).

It is very long and verbose, but anybody who has been following the thread will immediately understand what it was necessary to be as complete as possible. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Summary of the conclusions:

It seems highly likely, given the evidence so far, that cash games are *lower* variance than HUSNGs at equivalent buyins (meaning that playing $100NL would be lower variance than playing $100 HUSNGs).

Which would make perfect sense if a typical "good" winrate at HUCASH is 10BB/hundred hands, because you can make a much better hourly rate than that playing SNGs. In this case, the tradeoff would be lower hourly rate for a lower variance.

I would especially like to invite omgwtfnoway and jay_shark to read and comment, although I would completely understand if they want to be disassociated from the topic entirely.