BB/100 ratings...and PT stats - Page 6

shipitkthx · #51 07-29-2007, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the variance is not going to change. 1,000 hands of 3 tabling verus 1,000 hand of 6 tabling will have the same variance. Although as previously stated your winrate will usually be higher when 3 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be wrong.

If win rate is higher then variance is less especially over same number of hands.

I think I could be wrong too

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. Variance is directly tied to winrate so therefore if you have a 4ptbb/100 winrate 8 tabling you will have more variance than if you were 4 tabling at 6ptbb/100.

ikestoys · #52 07-29-2007, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the variance is not going to change. 1,000 hands of 3 tabling verus 1,000 hand of 6 tabling will have the same variance. Although as previously stated your winrate will usually be higher when 3 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be wrong.

If win rate is higher then variance is less especially over same number of hands.

I think I could be wrong too

[/ QUOTE ]

it is wrong... variance is not necessarily correlated at all with win rate.

variance 8 tabling 1k hands is the same as 1 tabling 1k hands assuming you are playing the same way

shipitkthx · #53 07-29-2007, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the variance is not going to change. 1,000 hands of 3 tabling verus 1,000 hand of 6 tabling will have the same variance. Although as previously stated your winrate will usually be higher when 3 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be wrong.

If win rate is higher then variance is less especially over same number of hands.

I think I could be wrong too

[/ QUOTE ]

it is wrong... variance is not necessarily correlated at all with win rate.

variance 8 tabling 1k hands is the same as 1 tabling 1k hands assuming you are playing the same way

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you were playing the same way your winrate would be the same over that 1k sample, doucy?

Also, yes it is correlated with winrate. The more of an edge you have the more likely it is that you will be closer to expectation over a given sample. If you run QQ against AK 100 times the chance of you being off from your expectation is much higher than if you ran QQ vs Q4 100 times.

destroBU · #54 07-29-2007, 11:38 PM

No one plays 8 tables the same as 4. How it effects variance depends though. Some play 8 tables more conservatively - fewer bluffs, folding in some marginal spots, etc. If that is the case, your variance could potentially decrease, along with your "true" winrate (provided you are good at bluffing, marginal spots, etc).

Also, playing more tables gets you to the long run faster which can sort of feel like lower variance.

Pasterbator · #55 07-29-2007, 11:40 PM

this thread....

wow.

also, wpr - almost everything you've said in this thread is stupid.

fitnessfreak · #56 07-30-2007, 01:29 AM

fwiw, i ran at 8ptbb (16BB) over my first 50k hands at 2/4nl playing 6 to 8 tables. i have subsequently discovered that i was running like god and my winrate has since come down to 2.8ptbb over 150k hands. ah reality, catches up with everyone sooner or later.

AceCR9 · #57 07-30-2007, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
this thread....

wow.

also, wpr - almost everything you've said in this thread is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

rdd110 · #58 07-30-2007, 01:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i ran at 8ptbb (16BB) over my first 50k hands at 2/4nl playing 6 to 8 tables. i have subsequently discovered that i was running like god and my winrate has since come down to 2.8ptbb over 150k hands. ah reality, catches up with everyone sooner or later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please confirm my translation.

8ptBB = the stat in poker tracker that I mentioned
(16BB) = 16 Big blinds

fitnessfreak · #59 07-30-2007, 01:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i ran at 8ptbb (16BB) over my first 50k hands at 2/4nl playing 6 to 8 tables. i have subsequently discovered that i was running like god and my winrate has since come down to 2.8ptbb over 150k hands. ah reality, catches up with everyone sooner or later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please confirm my translation.

8ptBB = the stat in poker tracker that I mentioned
(16BB) = 16 Big blinds

[/ QUOTE ]

confirmed. oh and btw, i hate to sound cliche but 13ptbb is totally unsustainable in the long term imo, even with meticulous game selection and playing 3 or less tables. dont wanna try to bring you down but just be prepared for running bad. it'll happen at some point, even to great players (and no offence, but you're probably not one, although i guess its possible that you are). better not to kid yourself [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PBJaxx · #60 07-30-2007, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the variance is not going to change. 1,000 hands of 3 tabling verus 1,000 hand of 6 tabling will have the same variance. Although as previously stated your winrate will usually be higher when 3 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be wrong.

If win rate is higher then variance is less especially over same number of hands.

I think I could be wrong too

[/ QUOTE ]

it is wrong... variance is not necessarily correlated at all with win rate.

variance 8 tabling 1k hands is the same as 1 tabling 1k hands assuming you are playing the same way

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you were playing the same way your winrate would be the same over that 1k sample, doucy?

Also, yes it is correlated with winrate. The more of an edge you have the more likely it is that you will be closer to expectation over a given sample. If you run QQ against AK 100 times the chance of you being off from your expectation is much higher than if you ran QQ vs Q4 100 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post displays a HUGE lack of understanding of basic statistics. Seriously, don't DUCY people when you are just gonna type garbage immediately afterwards.