reducing variance: the sklansky bux swap

[yad]

This seems like a ridiculously good idea for good players who trust each other to use privately amongst themselves. Having the sites do it is terrible for the fish-killing reasons folks have raised. fortunately it is only the former that is at all likely to happen.

[punter11235]

If the players play on Stars or FTP the could ask 3rd party dataminer for hands thus avoiding possibiilty of cheating by not reporting some hands. The issue to resolve would be payment trust and thats easier because one cant cheat without being caught (not many high stakes players would risk their reputation by not paying.. especially if the deal was somehow written down; as some examples of late showed though it may happen [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).

[SlowHabit]

Money has a funny way of making academic theories impractical.

[jfish]

i really like this idea.

[stigmata]

It's a great idea.

There is potenially an easy way to get round the trust problem: Only trade variance on hands mined by a trusted 3rd party (e.g. HSDB). This means only one party (the miner) really needs to be trusted. If he is taking a small cut for organisation, then there is a strong pressure to stay honest & trusted.

It could have some problems (need close to full coverage, need to trust the dataminer), but it should be the simplest implementation, and means that everyone is free to sign up, even complete unknowns.

[stigmata]

The biggest problem is that the organisation could well bring allegations of collusion / soft-play etc (even though this is obviously absurd). I just think it's better to not be seen openly pooling money etc.

[Ship Ship McGipp]

IF the EV calc would work almost perfectly, and people could understand it, and you had 3 or 4 people doing it, it'd be a good idea.

regularly, i'll sell 25% of my action or whatever, say in a live 10-20 or 25-50 game, not becuase i can't take the stakes necessarily, but because i'd rather be playing with less variance obviously. so i'll have 25% of someone in a 5-10 game and someone will have 25% of me in a 10-20 game.

can't imagine why a few people wouldnt' want to do it if it was easy to undersatnd, becuase veryone knows what it's like to run worse than they've ever thought possible (and if they haven't, here it comes)

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
You consider yourself the best shortstacker around, why split with someone who gets AI in dicey spots?

[/ QUOTE ]

why not split with anyone i trust? it reduces my variance and my winrate stays the same. why would i care if they're losing players, as long as they're good for it?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
IF the EV calc would work almost perfectly

[/ QUOTE ]

the EV calc works perfectly

[nutsflopper]

This is really a great idea. Instead of disacknowledging it b/c of trust issues, lets think of ideas to make it work.