Gramps
04-11-2004, 02:37 AM
Sounds like the general consensus is that shorthanded has a much bigger standard deviation than full table. My own observations from playing were in line with this, maybe because I was already under that impression.
Well...I was just looking through my pokertracker stats...and my standard deviation for full table is 15.2 BB/100 hands, while for 6-max...it's only 14.9 BB/100. I don't get it.
The full table stats are 35,000 hands at Party Poker $2/4 (generally loose passive). Is this maybe higher SD because you just have to sit there and wait to hit a hand? At 6-max (20,000 hands at Party 5/10) it seems like I can steal some pots here and there, even if I'm not getting great cards/great flops. This would seem to reduce your SD. The above might bring full table SD up more than one would think (at least for loose-passive), while the ability to semi-bluff/bluff and win some pots would bring it down for SH.
Are my numbers just out of whack? Anyone else have similar SD numbers for full table versus shorthanded? /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Well...I was just looking through my pokertracker stats...and my standard deviation for full table is 15.2 BB/100 hands, while for 6-max...it's only 14.9 BB/100. I don't get it.
The full table stats are 35,000 hands at Party Poker $2/4 (generally loose passive). Is this maybe higher SD because you just have to sit there and wait to hit a hand? At 6-max (20,000 hands at Party 5/10) it seems like I can steal some pots here and there, even if I'm not getting great cards/great flops. This would seem to reduce your SD. The above might bring full table SD up more than one would think (at least for loose-passive), while the ability to semi-bluff/bluff and win some pots would bring it down for SH.
Are my numbers just out of whack? Anyone else have similar SD numbers for full table versus shorthanded? /images/graemlins/confused.gif