HU Cash Bankroll Question ! NLCASH

[TNixon]

That's a little closer to what I expected to see, where the variance at cash is smaller, but not massively smaller.

And I do have a strong suspicion that my average hand count would be less than most people's, because I make some pretty high-variance calls in big pots, which would bring the two even closer together.

Just out of curiousity, where would you put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is ultra-conservative, playing very small pots unless you have a very strong hand, and 10 is superdonkaggro, playing massive pots all the time with marginal hands?

[jay_shark]

PT refers to BB as "big bets" not "big Blind" .

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
PT refers to BB as "big bets" not "big Blind" .

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as a "big bet" in no-limit. The term doesn't even make sense, so it would be very silly of pokertracker to represent it that way.

But if this is accurate:

[ QUOTE ]
I just realized that PT gives the $ amount - for my 100NL play the SD is $1.10/hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then jakeduke's std dev is still about half the std dev of somebody who is a 65% winner at $100s or $110s (which is a pretty huge winrate for that level), much less a more realistic, but still respectable, 58% or so.

[jay_shark]

The term does make sense and some people in the past have posted erroneous s.d's because they were confusing big blind with big bets .

Def'n of big bets = 2*BB

This definition applies to all forms of poker .

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
This definition applies to all forms of poker .

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, whatever. It's still a completely meaningless and irrelevant term for NL, but if that's how PT tracks it, I guess that's how PT tracks it.

So jake's original 59bb/100 is big bets? Or $118/100 hands for the .5/1 games?

And what is the $1.10/hand he posted? Presumably that really is in dollars, since he posted in $/hand instead of bb/100?

Either way, for our measly 2 sample data points, evidence seems to indicate that cash is likely significantly lower variance than sngs. Which, again, is what I've been claiming all along, and I still don't think you know if you want to argue with me or agree with me.

[jakeduke]

the "BB" stat used in PT is limit based - things get messed up in the translation to NL so it doesn't work quite right. One PTBB at 100NL = $2. The $1.10/hand I posted came straight from PT, so yeah it's $/hand. And yes, it says 55.04BB/100.

I'm somewhere between a 4 and a 6 on your scale probably.

[jay_shark]

Again 1 Big Bet = 2*(big blind) which is a term used mostly in limit hold em games but the def'n can be applied to anything .

So $1.10/hand is equivalent to 55.04BB/100 or $110.08/100 hands ~ 1.10/hand .

[SwingVelvet]

so all in all you come to this forum, read the sticky and see this:

HU is a great form of poker because it's lower variance.

this statement is misleading then, since it's only lower variance in a TOURNAMENT sense, but higher variance than a CASH ring game.

RIGHT?!

[jay_shark]

Of course swingvelvet .

I'm going to have to take a closer look at what's posted in the sticky but from what I've seen , everything looks good .

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
RIGHT?!

[/ QUOTE ]
That is correct, sir.

I just looked back through the sticky, and honestly couldn't see anywhere that says HU is lower variance, though. Especially not anywhere that suggests HU cash is lower variance than other forms of cash, which would clearly be a blatant lie.