Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: If you voted Rep, was your reason....
Family Values - Religion 3 12.00%
Dem Scandals - Individ. character 0 0%
Military - Iraq 5 20.00%
Branding - loyalty 0 0%
Economy - taxes 12 48.00%
Poker 5 20.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:17 PM
thedustbustr thedustbustr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,556
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

a seperate thought, for those where you have narrowed his range down to 2 or 3 hands, you're more likely to see if you were right. if his range is 10 hands, its less likely that he will have a hand that is in his range that you didn't think was in his range.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:20 PM
ReptileHouse ReptileHouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,203
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

Since the distribution is the same and the overall equity is the same, my first impression is that the variance will actually be the same for all of these situations. That is, a coin flip is a coin flip, no matter how complicated the "coin" is. In all cases, we have a sample size of a single hand, which we will win or lose, where we have 50% equity. There is no difference.

What am I missing?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:21 PM
Montezuma21 Montezuma21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,088
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

To those more mathematically inclined than me-

Am i right in thinking that Example 4 has the least variance?

Also, in terms of variance, 2=3, and 1=5 right?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:23 PM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
Since the distribution is the same and the overall equity is the same, my first impression is that the variance will actually be the same for all of these situations. That is, a coin flip is a coin flip, no matter how complicated the "coin" is. In all cases, we have a sample size of a single hand, which we will win or lose, where we have 50% equity. There is no difference.

What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]


There is no lottery-style variance with 100% equity and 0% equity.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:29 PM
Ratamahatta Ratamahatta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CPH-Denmark
Posts: 2,733
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
Since the distribution is the same...

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by that? Distributions of those 5 examples are not the same...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:32 PM
ReptileHouse ReptileHouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,203
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
There is no lottery-style variance with 100% equity and 0% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. 50% of the time we'll have 100% equity, and 50% of the time we'll have 0% equity. This is the same as having 50% equity 100% of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:34 PM
ReptileHouse ReptileHouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,203
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the distribution is the same...

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by that? Distributions of those 5 examples are not the same...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero has 50% equity against villain's stated range in all 5 examples.

When we know the villain's range with 100% certainty, the only thing that matters is our equity against that range. The composition of that range is irrelevant.

The composition of villain's range generally DOES matter, because we aren't 100% confident in that range. We need to analyze, even if only by gut feel, how sensitive our equity is to small changes in the range.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:35 PM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no lottery-style variance with 100% equity and 0% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. 50% of the time we'll have 100% equity, and 50% of the time we'll have 0% equity. This is the same as having 50% equity 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


WHAT?!?!

[ QUOTE ]
Example 1: Villain has 2 hands in his range, One you have 0% equity against, the other, you have 100% equity against.


[/ QUOTE ]


This means that the lottery-variance of cards that have yet to come have 0 influence on the outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:37 PM
ReptileHouse ReptileHouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,203
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

[ QUOTE ]
This means that the lottery-variance of cards that have yet to come have 0 influence on the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm talking about equity, not outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-27-2007, 02:44 PM
tarheeljks tarheeljks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: stone that the builder refused
Posts: 4,134
Default Re: Something I\'ve been thinking about

in a vaccuum i don't care, but in reality it depends on the villain
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.