Something I've been thinking about

[thedustbustr]

a seperate thought, for those where you have narrowed his range down to 2 or 3 hands, you're more likely to see if you were right. if his range is 10 hands, its less likely that he will have a hand that is in his range that you didn't think was in his range.

[ReptileHouse]

Since the distribution is the same and the overall equity is the same, my first impression is that the variance will actually be the same for all of these situations. That is, a coin flip is a coin flip, no matter how complicated the "coin" is. In all cases, we have a sample size of a single hand, which we will win or lose, where we have 50% equity. There is no difference.

What am I missing?

[Montezuma21]

To those more mathematically inclined than me-

Am i right in thinking that Example 4 has the least variance?

Also, in terms of variance, 2=3, and 1=5 right?

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
i strongly prefer less variance. you guys should too, because it means you can move up faster. which is highly +EV in a meta-sense. not to mention everyone tilts, even those of you who think you don't, and reducing variance reduces tilt.

if you're getting at something deeper than that, you lost us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is half true.

Less variance also equals less POSITIVE variance.

Therefore amongst a pool of good players who play a high-variance style, a very significant portion of them will move up faster than anyone in a pool of good players who play a low-variance style.