Peter_rus
02-27-2005, 08:25 PM
Hi, guys. Im limit player mostly. It's said from time to time that NL have lower variance than limit when playing good. I always thought that it's exactly otherwise.
The main practical meaning of variance is answer to a question - how much hands i need to collect to get my results equal or higher my real EV with high probability. As real ev is usually unknown or have too high mistake in its evaluation and correctness of evaluation depends on variance, i just want your stats not in relation your real ev but in relation to zero results.
So to compare limit vs no limit i want to know what is the largest number of hands you were running below zero rezults during your play. I appreciate all the answers and opinions though i think answers from those who have lesser than 100K hands of NL online are meaningless.
Of course it also depends on limit and number of players on a table, but to get basic generalization i don't need those things to consider.
The main practical meaning of variance is answer to a question - how much hands i need to collect to get my results equal or higher my real EV with high probability. As real ev is usually unknown or have too high mistake in its evaluation and correctness of evaluation depends on variance, i just want your stats not in relation your real ev but in relation to zero results.
So to compare limit vs no limit i want to know what is the largest number of hands you were running below zero rezults during your play. I appreciate all the answers and opinions though i think answers from those who have lesser than 100K hands of NL online are meaningless.
Of course it also depends on limit and number of players on a table, but to get basic generalization i don't need those things to consider.