Finally, a useful conclusion drawn in the variance thread! NL

[LordMushroom2]

I think PT can give standard deviation/100 (PTBBs) for cash-games. And also the number of SnGs played, the number of hours spent playing them and thus the number of SnGs per hour.

As for other stuff, I am more unsure.

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 $33 tables definitely has less variance than 1 $100 buy in cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...

Which would be important if we were trying to compare $100 cash sessions to $33 sng tables.

Since we're actually trying to compare $100 cash sessions to $100 sng tables, you're going to have to help me out here and explain what you meant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My brain farted. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[TNixon]

So there's not one single person willing to contribute stats to the cause, in an attempt to figure out if cash is lower variance than husngs of the same buy-in in the real world?

Based on all the evidence so far, I honestly believe that cash is lower variance, despite the fact that general opinion seems to be that the average swings are much bigger in cash.

It's tough to determine whether reality matches theory without any data though.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Even if the numbers I need aren't easily available in pokertracker, there are some other ways to get at them, though, as long as you have a sufficiently large number of saved hand histories. And if anonymity is the issue, those ways would compile stats that you could send me, without requiring you to send me the actual histories.