reducing variance: the sklansky bux swap

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do people invest in bonds and CDs? they're better off ttaking the relatively +EV option of investing in the stock market... with leverage...

[Dale Dough]

Fair enough. Can I sign up retroactively? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[punter11235]

I think every poker player loves variance. Even if they dont realize it its somewhere deep in their souls. Just look how they react to ideas which could take it away from them if put into practice...

[Jay.]

I'm surprised this didn't get more attention, i really like the idea. I'm thinking about doing it just flat out based on previous win rates w/ people i could trust. More things that could go wrong, but even less variance.

[Daliman]

I was thinking along simlar lines years ago with sites allowing people to take "insurance" on their hand, but I think it would slow down the game, kill action, and wise up the fish.
Also, getting people you could trust would be hard, and AI situations have far too many variables. You consider yourself the best shortstacker around, why split with someone who gets AI in dicey spots?

[punter11235]

Jeeez. It doesnt matter how well someone is playing. You could even swap with -5ptbb/100 player and it will still be EV neutral.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking about doing it just flat out based on previous win rates

[/ QUOTE ]

So why exactly winrates matter at all ?

[ QUOTE ]
and AI situations have far too many variables

[/ QUOTE ]

ROTFL. Equity and actual score. Thats two variables. Is that too many ?

[Wizzy33]

Theoretically this is a very good idea. If you had a group of like 5-6 players you would essentially eliminate your variance. Your bottom line isn't affected. People who say this is a bad idea dont understand it properly.

Practically though it would be very hard to monitor. You would need a group of close friends who wouldn't cheat each other and such.

[RikaKazak]

I'd be down for doing this with people I trust.

I can only think of 3 that I trust enough to do this with though.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically this is a very good idea. If you had a group of like 5-6 players you would essentially eliminate your variance. Your bottom line isn't affected. People who say this is a bad idea dont understand it properly.

Practically though it would be very hard to monitor. You would need a group of close friends who wouldn't cheat each other and such.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Maulik]

A handful of sng kids chopped SNG x number of SNGs for several months. Aside from the trust issues it's not a bad idea if you're a professional and rely on the income for monthly nut.