Musings on variance.

[Logan2]

In a 50bb pot we will either win 50bb or win 0bb with a mean of 35. This means we will either have a deviation of 35 or 15bb from the mean.

In a 200bb pot we will either win 200 or 0 with a mean of 140. This means we will either have a deviation of 140 or 60 from the mean.

The mathematical definition of variance (according to wikipedia anyway) is:

"the expected value of the squared deviation from the mean μ = E[X]:"

So I think it's safe to say that the value of the square of the difference from the mean in #1 will always be less than in #2, therefore the expectation must be smaller, thus the variance will be smaller.

This mean that if we gii vs a shorty variance is less than gii vs a standard 100bb stack?, always think that was the oposite (more variance vs shorties but if understand what your saying is not).

So, playing deepstack poker it also by nature bring more variance right?

Back to what bring me here, duggs mention we can skewed variance, the only thing that come to mind is by playing big pots only with nuty hands, and small pots in general, but this look like very random "small hand small pot/big hand big pot" .

And most important, do we really want to skip variance?, i mean we are talking that big pots have bigger variance but also is the only way to have bigger WR, so ...

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I think conventional comments say there is more variance against shorties simply because you will end up putting all the money in before the river much more often. It's just easier to get the money in.

But also, I think you misunderstand what is meant by "skewed" in statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness

Duggs isn't talking about "skewing {changing} variance," he's talking about the "skew {asymmetry} of a distribution."

 

[Logan2]

yeah, i take skewed like twisted, detract from, make it less in a way.
​

 

[hackmeplz]

In general if we can increase ev and increase variance, we want to do it. Obviously if we can decrease variance without impacting ev we should or if we're under-rolled we should be less likely to increase ev at the expense of increasing variance.

 

[Aces2w1n]

Yea but I'm imposing that the bets are all of the same size, so then there is only one street and it doesn't need to be ultra realistic ( we have a situation where we get it in as a huge favourite for a large sample, if this were realistic everyone would crush)

You know I've been thinking about NL for a while ... If the majority all played good poker and made min mistakes whats the outcome?...

It's pretty obvious.


The house wins.... And everyone playing loses...

So what could be done about this?

A new style of play evolves... One that doesn't make sense to people who know what their doing. Turn the game upside down so everyone else knows nothing and your boss...


I think because of the house wins etc is the reason why a lot of pro's play other formats because the more sharks etc.. less fish... If you include everything in the game including rake from the house, a sitting fee and everything else internet. And fee's we pay to play.

It's hard to think it's a win win especially for the lower levels at micros and nowadays how everyone says the poker world is harder and harder every year, well it's starting to tell me something. Either evolve or change formats.


This is a good thread also Duggs it shows the people who are restricted to the maths side of things and who can think outside the square. You need both to succeed in poker and not just be a robot



So inclusion... Varience should be slightly downward to most players who know what their doing long term... But table selection and a few other things can change this outcome. Game selection also

 

[duggs]

You know I've been thinking about NL for a while ... If the majority all played good poker and made min mistakes whats the outcome?...

It's pretty obvious.


The house wins.... And everyone playing loses...

So what could be done about this?

A new style of play evolves... One that doesn't make sense to people who know what their doing. Turn the game upside down so everyone else knows nothing and your boss...


I think because of the house wins etc is the reason why a lot of pro's play other formats because the more sharks etc.. less fish... If you include everything in the game including rake from the house, a sitting fee and everything else internet. And fee's we pay to play.

It's hard to think it's a win win especially for the lower levels at micros and nowadays how everyone says the poker world is harder and harder every year, well it's starting to tell me something. Either evolve or change formats.


This is a good thread also Duggs it shows the people who are restricted to the maths side of things and who can think outside the square. You need both to succeed in poker and not just be a robot



So inclusion... Varience should be slightly downward to most players who know what their doing long term... But table selection and a few other things can change this outcome. Game selection also

first part ignores the fundamentals of the game and also ignores game theoretic methods for determining optimal strategy, if there was some 'makes no sense. the conclusion is also wrong you should reread some of the posts imo

 

[hackmeplz]

You might have a point if most pros didn't still play nl, but they do...

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Lol at saying that math limits your ability to think "outside the box." No offense, but people who think like this don't have a good sense of what math really is, at a fundamental level.