Turbos vs. regular SNGs (variance)

[KKbluff]

This is mainly a Pokerstars question.

Do the PS Turbos offer more or less variance compared to their normal SNGs?

In my experience (about 100 of each) I tend to find the turbos offer me less variance and more ROI (esp on the hourly rate multitabling)

What does everyone else have to say about this? I would love to know.

EDIT: this is mainly geared towards mid-lower stakes SNGs

Definitely more variance compared to their normal SNGs, and lower ROI, but higher $/hr. I guess you could play badly postflop and then get lower ROI and more variance in their normals though.

Compared to Party SNGs, however, I think they are fairly similar.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
This is mainly a Pokerstars question.

Do the PS Turbos offer more or less variance compared to their normal SNGs?

In my experience (about 100 of each) I tend to find the turbos offer me less variance and more ROI (esp on the hourly rate multitabling)

What does everyone else have to say about this? I would love to know.

EDIT: this is mainly geared towards mid-lower stakes SNGs

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically, the turbos should offer higher variance, higher hourly rate, and lower ROI.

I have played a lot of both, but at very different phases in my poker life so I cant really say for certain from experience.

I think the only one above up for debate is ROI...If youre better than the average player in the SNG pool, then standard SNGs should offer higher ROI (more play time is better for the "better" player). Of course this assumption could be offset by the fact that better players might gravitate towards the standard SNGs and lesser players to the turbos...But who knows?

I agree. More time between blinds will allow good players more time / hands to make moves. In a turbo it is still profitable but more variance because the blinds can rise quicker and turn things more into a crapshoot

[KKbluff]

In turbos I play VERY tight, and almost never end up in a place lower than 5th. I think that maybe my "overly tight" play rewards me in Turbos more than in their regular SNGs..

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
In turbos I play VERY tight, and almost never end up in a place lower than 5th. I think that maybe my "overly tight" play rewards me in Turbos more than in their regular SNGs..

[/ QUOTE ]

and more 3rds to 1sts?

[Nick M]

there is something that I've said on here many times. I even wrote a big thread that got much scrutiny. The more post flop play, where you have an edge, the less variance. The more post flop play, the more chances you have to win with the worst hand. This is only of course if you have the edge in post flop play. Because the same holds true the other way. The more post flop play, where you have less of an advantage, the more variance.
Variance is decided by the winning or losing with the worst hand, and winning or losing with the best hand. If you are running well, your good hands are holding up and your bad hands are sucking out. And the opposite, when you are running bad, your good hands can't win, and your bad hands can't suck out...but imagine you got the chance to play all those bad hands post flop with an edge. You now have that edge on every street. You now have more chances to avoid variance by outplaying your opponent. So in conclusion, if you have an edge post flop, then playing with more postflop play should reduce variance.

[swiftrhett]

Turbos will have less variance only because there are 9 players instead of 10. In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI because it depends on your place percentages and 13%/13%/13%/61% yeilds a variance similar to the one that 10%/10%/10%/70% gives.

Somebody around here learn some math for christsakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/math/8268f58c1b88c6280cfdc85279734a99.png

The square root of the sigma-squared is your standard deviation. That's why your standard deviation only increases as the square root of the number of games you play, while your profit increases linearly (ideally).

[ QUOTE ]
In turbos I play VERY tight, and almost never end up in a place lower than 5th. I think that maybe my "overly tight" play rewards me in Turbos more than in their regular SNGs..

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I often will play a 45 person turbo (i know this it STT forum) and almost always make the last 9 and almost always cash. Super tight is the way to go in these things.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Turbos will have less variance only because there are 9 players instead of 10. In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI because it depends on your place percentages and 13%/13%/13%/61% yeilds a variance similar to the one that 10%/10%/10%/70% gives.

Somebody around here learn some math for christsakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/math/8268f58c1b88c6280cfdc85279734a99.png

The square root of the sigma-squared is your variance. That's why your variance only increases as the square root of the number of games you play, while your profit increases linearly (ideally).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what a pompous post!

Ok, if we "learn math" will you work on your reading comprehension? Just practice, its easy and fun!

OP was asking about turbos vs. standard SNGs on stars...both have 9 players.

[swiftrhett]

I'm sorry, I guess my post was pompus because it borders on the actual answer to your question. Here is something friendlier and what I think you were looking for:

"Yeah man, the variance is way more on the Turbos. I won like 6 out of 10 yesterday, and today I'm 0 for 8. This sucks man, shoot me now. I think there may be lower variance at the higher buyins though."

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I guess my post was pompus because it borders on the actual answer to your question. Here is something friendlier and what I think you were looking for:

"Yeah man, the variance is way more on the Turbos. I won like 6 out of 10 yesterday, and today I'm 0 for 8. This sucks man, shoot me now. I think there may be lower variance at the higher buyins though."

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus! You still don't get it! The two different formats the original poster was referring to were both 9 player SNGs! So your whole post was based on a false premise. Thanks for the math lesson though. When I want to find out the ratio of apples to oranges in barrel x I'll come to you to find out all about barrel y...thx.

P.S. It wasnt your tone per se. It was the tone coupled with the fact that you didnt know what you were talking about.

[swiftrhett]

I'm sorry, I'll try to take things real slow for you one step at a time. The fact that one type of sit-and-go has 9 players, and another type of sit-and-go has 9 players does not make one type have any more or less inherant variance than the other. Therefore, my thesis that the sitandgos should yield a similar variance stands.

Now, if the payout structures are wildly different, that's a different story. But don't worry, we won't get into that till you can learn how to count, Cletus.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I guess my post was pompus because it borders on the actual answer to your question. Here is something friendlier and what I think you were looking for:

"Yeah man, the variance is way more on the Turbos. I won like 6 out of 10 yesterday, and today I'm 0 for 8. This sucks man, shoot me now. I think there may be lower variance at the higher buyins though."

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus! You still don't get it! The two different formats the original poster was referring to were both 9 player SNGs! So your whole post was based on a false premise. Thanks for the math lesson though. When I want to find out the ratio of apples to oranges in barrel x I'll come to you to find out all about barrel y...thx.

P.S. It wasnt your tone per se. It was the tone coupled with the fact that you didnt know what you were talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Paxosmotic]

You're going to fit in swimmingly around here. Can I have free coaching at the $11s from you, oh master?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I'll try to take things real slow for you one step at a time. The fact that one type of sit-and-go has 9 players, and another type of sit-and-go has 9 players does not make one type have any more or less inherant variance than the other. Therefore, my thesis that the sitandgos should yield a similar variance stands.

But don't worry, we won't get into that till you can learn how to count, Cletus.





[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Turbos will have less variance only because there are 9 players instead of 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Counting is your specialty not mine.

[sofere]

Game. Set. Match.

[-Skeme-]

The Stars Turbo SNGs are super tight or something right now. We're often 7-8 handed 25 minutes into it. It's getting very frustrating.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody around here learn some math for christsakes

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif I love it

You are my new favorite poster.

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, strictly speaking you are right, but when poker players talk about variance, they actually mean something slightly different.

They are referring to the kinds of swings that they will take.

This is very much affected by ROI, so a better metric for swings is not SD alone, but rather SD divided by profit/tourney.

Regards
Brad S

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, strictly speaking you are right, but when poker players talk about variance, they actually mean something slightly different.

They are referring to the kinds of swings that they will take.

This is very much affected by ROI, so a better metric for swings is not SD alone, but rather SD divided by profit/tourney.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we assume that an above average player will enjoy a better ROI in a standard SNG because of elongated play time, then his variance should be lower there.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Turbos will have less variance only because there are 9 players instead of 10. In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI because it depends on your place percentages and 13%/13%/13%/61% yeilds a variance similar to the one that 10%/10%/10%/70% gives.

Somebody around here learn some math for christsakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/math/8268f58c1b88c6280cfdc85279734a99.png

The square root of the sigma-squared is your standard deviation. That's why your standard deviation only increases as the square root of the number of games you play, while your profit increases linearly (ideally).

[/ QUOTE ]
Worst post ever.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
Game. Set. Match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly

Why is it that if any poster asks a question about something like whether he can expect a 20% ROI in the 33s, everyone comes out of the woodwork to flame him and tell him to read the faq, or do a search. They do this very pompously too, I might add. I mean pompous in ways that makes this thread look like child's play

BUT... when someone says the same thing about mathematics that have been covered in this forum a million times before, everyone gets offended?

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
So if we assume that an above average player will enjoy a better ROI in a standard SNG because of elongated play time, then his variance should be lower there.


[/ QUOTE ]

well...no. not variance

but yes, he will feel smaller swings relative to his bankroll growth

Regards
Brad S

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if we assume that an above average player will enjoy a better ROI in a standard SNG because of elongated play time, then his variance should be lower there.


[/ QUOTE ]

well...no. not variance

but yes, he will feel smaller swings relative to his bankroll growth

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe that was what OP was asking. A few people tried to respond and the thread unraveled. I have close to zero formal training in mathematics, but I do know when someone with low self-esteem is looking for a flame war. (Not you obviously).

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that was what OP was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I mean, I know that's what the OP was asking. That's what everyone is asking when they ask about variance. Trouble is they keep calling it variance, and that's only a part of it.

...then the math inclined get frustrated when nobody gets why variance is pretty constant.

Believe it or not, I am not actually that formally trained in math myself, so I don't know it the metric I describe has a technical name. If it doesn't I nominate 'fluctuation metric' or maybe 'swing metric'. Even 'relative variance' seems ok, as that is what we are really talking about - variance relative to average profit.

I am pretty sure it must already have a name

Regards
Brad S

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that was what OP was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I mean, I know that's what the OP was asking. That's what everyone is asking when they ask about variance. Trouble is they keep calling it variance, and that's only a part of it.

...then the math inclined get frustrated when nobody gets why variance is pretty constant.

Believe it or not, I am not actually that formally trained in math myself, so I don't know it the metric I describe has a technical name. If it doesn't I nominate 'fluctuation metric' or maybe 'swing metric'. Even 'relative variance' seems ok, as that is what we are really talking about - variance relative to average profit.

I am pretty sure it must already have a name

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough...

Though variance being a constant in reality then frees up the term for our purposes to mean what OP meant it to be. /images/graemlins/wink.gif FWIW, I am not that interested in these things and only play to get better, have fun, and make money. However, in my first response to this thread I addressed the OP's question quite well for HIS purposes. I also felt like Nick M's response was right on as well...

Again, if we want to start calling it "swing", thats fine by me...

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely more variance compared to their normal SNGs, and lower ROI, but higher $/hr .

[/ QUOTE ]

care to back that up?

[swiftrhett]

Maybe the swing metric you brought up is something like (profit / #ofgames) - (standard deviation / #of games). So, if a player has an ROI of 20% and a standard deviation / tourney of 1 buyin, then the tourney buyin scales as the square root of the number of games he plays. So, for instance, if this player does 100 games / week, that's a "swing metric" of 20% * 100 / 1 * sqrt(100) = 20 - 10 = 10. Basically, this means, even one standard deviation from your average, you expect to be up at least 10. You could divide them if you're looking for relative swings I guess. The problem with quantifying this is that players who play wildly different amounts of tournuments see this very differently, and in general your standard deviation goes down relative to other things if you play more.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that was what OP was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I mean, I know that's what the OP was asking. That's what everyone is asking when they ask about variance. Trouble is they keep calling it variance, and that's only a part of it.

...then the math inclined get frustrated when nobody gets why variance is pretty constant.

Believe it or not, I am not actually that formally trained in math myself, so I don't know it the metric I describe has a technical name. If it doesn't I nominate 'fluctuation metric' or maybe 'swing metric'. Even 'relative variance' seems ok, as that is what we are really talking about - variance relative to average profit.

I am pretty sure it must already have a name

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
in general your standard deviation goes down relative to other things if you play more.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is really that much of a problem

Consider two players A and B who both play $11 SNGs
A has a 30% ROI and a SD of ~$18.50/t
B has a 3% ROI and a SD of ~$18.50/t

per SNG, if we define this metric as SD/profit:

A would have a value of 6.16
B would have a value of 61.6

this means that compared to one another B would perceive ten times the swings.

After 100 SNGs,

A would have a SD/100t of $185 and a profit/100 of $330
B would have a SD/100t of $185 and a profit/100 of $33

per 100 SNGs then, continuing to define this metric as SD/profit

A would have a value of $185/330 or 0.56
B would have a value of $185/33 or 5.6

So, compared to each other, B still experiences swings ten times as big relative to his bankroll growth. Over 100 SNGs however, they both experience much smaller swings relative to expected growth than they do over a single SNG. This all makes sense to me.

After all, if player A runs badly, he will recover much more quickly, and may even continue to show a profit. If player B runs badly, he will take much longer to recover and will almost certainly show a loss. The reason why the values for 'swings' are much lower in the 100 SNG case is that we are treating a 100 SNG sample as a single unit, and obviously when dealing with these units, swings will be much smaller. When dealing with 100 SNG samples, this metric is lower for the very reasons that you earlier mentioned. SD does not increase linearly, whereas profit does.

As far as wildly different 'swing' values based on differing amounts of games, the solution is just to use the single unit value, much as we do with SD. After all, SD is wildly different as well when we consider differing samples, and we know how to deal with that.

I haven't yet compared this to your suggested metric for takling about swings, so I guess I'll take a closer look at it now, and post again when I can see if there is an advantage to using it. If I am missing something, let me know.

Regards
Brad S

PS - for anyone wondering what these 'swing' values mean, it is just the multiple of your expected profit that you may be up or down from your expectation over the sample.

ie - with a swing value of 61, if you run 1 SD bad, it will on average take you 61 tourneys to recover (return to that expectation). similarly for larger samples

[ QUOTE ]
Turbos will have less variance only because there are 9 players instead of 10. In SNGs, your variance will always be near the same, regardless of your ROI because it depends on your place percentages and 13%/13%/13%/61% yeilds a variance similar to the one that 10%/10%/10%/70% gives.

Somebody around here learn some math for christsakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/math/8268f58c1b88c6280cfdc85279734a99.png

The square root of the sigma-squared is your standard deviation. That's why your standard deviation only increases as the square root of the number of games you play, while your profit increases linearly (ideally).

[/ QUOTE ]


Your standard deviation (per game) doesn't 'decrease' at all--in fact, it converges quite rapidly mostly (if not purely) as a property of the tourney structure.

I think what you mean is that as you play more and more games, your ideal aggregate profit increases linearly whereas the difference between your actual and ideal aggregate profit (for any given confidence) increases logarithmically.

I guess your wording is technically true if we're viewing blocks of SNGs as 'supergames'--your standard deviation per supergame does increase logarithmically as you increase the number of games per supergame.

Anyway, I think your OP is rude.