Variance revisited HUCASH vs HUTRN

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
as i understand it, the definition of variance that you're tacitly using

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

The definition of variance I'm using is the size of the swings in your bankroll, where if the swings are too big, and you have too few buyins, your risk of going broke is large.

Reading the rest right now, but thank you in advance for finally putting something real into the thread.

[omgwtfnoway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as i understand it, the definition of variance that you're tacitly using

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

The definition of variance I'm using is the size of the swings in your bankroll, where if the swings are too big, and you have too few buyins, your risk of going broke is large.

[/ QUOTE ]it was an oversimplification, sorry.

edit: i make a lot of (reasonable) assumptions in this post, if you disagree with them please show me how you would do the math.

[TNixon]

Sorry for the broken multi-posts, but since you seem to be around, I'm going to go ahead and post as I digest.

[ QUOTE ]

10bb case.
std dev=21.9bb/hand

100bb case
std dev=219bb/hand


[/ QUOTE ]
Without actually looking at the math or anything else, these results indicate that, given the setup (equal bankrolls and equal buyins, just at different blind levels), the variance in these two cases is exactly the same in real $, as well as percentage of bankrolls. 219bb when bb = $1 is exactly the same as 21.9bb when bb = $10, $219.

And this is exactly the point that I feel like you've been missing all along, and why I've been so frustrated about this particular issue.

[jay_shark]

Omg has some great points and so does Tnixon .

If you're thinking about entering a game with 100X the bb or 200X the bb and in both cases your opponent has you covered , then clearly there is less variance if you play with 100X the BB .

However , if you're playing only with 20X the bb , then your edge is reduced so it's no longer equivalent to the edge you'd have playing with 100X the BB . That being said , even though your edge is reduced , it still doesn't mean there is more variance .

5 pts for omg while Tnixon scores 4 points .

[omgwtfnoway]

[ QUOTE ]
Without actually looking at the math or anything else, these results indicate that, given the setup (equal bankrolls and equal buyins, just at different blind levels), the variance in these two cases is exactly the same in real $, as well as percentage of bankrolls. 219bb when bb = $1 is exactly the same as 21.9bb when bb = $10, $219.

[/ QUOTE ]no, equal bankrolls and equal blind levels but buying in for different amounts. so shortstacking $5knl like grimstarr will be lower variance than if he were to buyin for a full 100bb.

edited for clarification

[omgwtfnoway]

[ QUOTE ]
Omg has some great points and so does Tnixon .

If you're thinking about entering a game with 100X the bb or 200X the bb and in both cases your opponent has you covered , then clearly there is less variance if you play with 100X the BB .

However , if you're playing only with 20X the bb , then your edge is reduced so it's no longer equivalent to the edge you'd have playing with 100X the BB . That being said , even though your edge is reduced , it still doesn't mean there is more variance .

5 pts for omg while Tnixon scores 4 points .

[/ QUOTE ]ruserious? this scoring is zomgrigged

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
think about it as the effective stack decreasing at the same blinds instead of the blinds going up and you'll see that in the later stages of the tourney variance is decreasing as effective stack (in bb) decreases).

[/ QUOTE ]
But you *can't* think about it like that.

Because it's *not* just like that.

comparing $100 at 0.5/1 vs $10 at 0.5/1 is *very* different than comparing $100 at 0.5/1 vs $100 at $5/$10.

In fact, in your all-in 60/40 example, the variance (as a percentage of your bankroll, or real $, take your pick), HAS to be exactly the same whether you're at 0.5/1 or 5/10, because every hand, you're betting all-in with a 60% chance to win. The fact that the blinds are different in the two cases is completely irrelevant. You're simply betting $100 with a 60% chance to win.

[TNixon]

Still trying to digest the rest, but I very strongly suspect you've made similar mistakes in your other comparisons, comparing BBs, without taking into account the fact that BB is not equal in the two cases.

[omgwtfnoway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think about it as the effective stack decreasing at the same blinds instead of the blinds going up and you'll see that in the later stages of the tourney variance is decreasing as effective stack (in bb) decreases).

[/ QUOTE ]
But you *can't* think about it like that.

Because it's *not* just like that.

comparing $100 at 0.5/1 vs $10 at 0.5/1 is *very* different than comparing $100 at 0.5/1 vs $100 at $5/$10.

In fact, in your all-in 60/40 example, the variance (as a percentage of your bankroll, or real $, take your pick), HAS to be exactly the same whether you're at 0.5/1 or 5/10, because every hand, you're betting all-in with a 60% chance to win. The fact that the blinds are different in the two cases is completely irrelevant. You're simply betting $100 with a 60% chance to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
no i'm not, in one case i'm betting $10 at a time with a 60% chance to win, in the other i'm betting $100 with a 60% chance to win.

stop posting about same buyins at different blind levels and normalize the stacks in terms of bb.

[ QUOTE ]
But you *can't* think about it like that.

Because it's *not* just like that.

[/ QUOTE ]these are the kind of baseless arguments you've accussed me of making throughout the thread. SHOW ME why i can't think about it like that.

edit: done ninja editing

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
no i'm not, in one case i'm betting $10 at a time with a 60% chance to win, in the other i'm betting $100 with a 60% chance to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
huh?

Here is your setup for that example:
[ QUOTE ]
now we'll take two hypothetical cash game hands. in both hands, hero gets all the money in as a 60-40 favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]
"All the money" is exactly $100 in both cases. In one case, that $100 represents 100 big blinds. In the other case, that $100 represents 10 big blinds. But how many blinds are represented is irrelevant, because *all the money* is in.

$100 is in, in both cases. Not $10 in one and $100 in other.