reducing variance: the sklansky bux swap

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the only catch is that you have to do it with people you trust to pay up and to report their hand histories/results accurately.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, that's the only catch? In that case, I also can't understand why people aren't jumping all over this!

[/ QUOTE ]

people often sell pieces of themselves to other players, costing themselves EV. the same trust issues apply there, but people are doing it all the time.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
stinky, the way to implement this is pretty simple. Simply have the poker software have a setting whether you want the money to be awarded according to all-in equity. Whenever all the players in an all in situation have turned on the setting, they split according to equity. I am sure a lot of higher stakes regulars would welcome such a feature (especially those playing heads up). On the other hand it would ruin the high stakes games for the donks that rail them.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's crossed my mind before too.

one way it could be done to keep the fish smiling is to have the money on the table be won/lost the normal way, but to have a separate option to have money transferred to/from the other players as necessary, confidentially. you'd have to have enough in your account to cover it to be eligible.

obviously it would be tough to get any site to implemente this. full tilt might go for it if they right people ask for it though, who knows.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the absence of such a calculator would make it more profitable for players in the group swapping sklansky bux to become all-in monkeys even when they would normally take a more conservative and more profitable approach to their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

to say it another way, reducing variance by playing conservatively isn't profitable. it costs you money. if the conservative way is the more profitable way, you can't magically make another line more profitable through neutral EV hedging.

the swap is a neutral EV hedge. in other words, a neutral EV gamble with perfect inverse correlation to your results.

[Melchiades]

Worst idea ever. Wtf?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Worst idea ever. Wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

care to elaborate? what's so bad about reducing your variance at no EV cost, unless you're a losing player who just wants to gamble?

[Melchiades]

Because lots of fish don't know they are fish. They think they get sucked out on more than the average player and are losing cause they are unlucky. Give them the option to have money after all in equity, a fair few of them would chose to do so. Only to find out they are losing their roll even faster than normal. The idea seems mindbogglingly stupid to me.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Because lots of fish don't know they are fish. They think they get sucked out on more than the average player and are losing cause they are unlucky. Give them the option to have money after all in equity, a fair few of them would chose to do so. Only to find out they are losing their roll even faster than normal. The idea seems mindbogglingly stupid to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right. thought you were referring to OP.

[Christophers]

Good idea, will never happen.

[Dale Dough]

Would this service actually be worth money - i.e. if, say, the sites asked .1% to hedge your all-in sklansky bucks for you, would you take it? A monthly fee?

Probably not - you're better off taking the relatively +EV option of not hedging and eat the variance. That's what poker is all about, after all.

But I think it's fair to say - think about the recent issue, Grimstarr etc - that there's at least .1% chance somebody in the group will screw you over, unless you do it with friends. I know this isn't exactly equivalent, but I'm sure the point gets across.

[Overfloater]

this idea sucks because it takes the gamble out of poker