Finally - A Real World Perspective
I agree with this.
Finally a lone voice of reason...
In repsonse to the chorus that...
"You gotta play 5,000,000 SNGs before your results mean anything".
Your point in analogous to using the Sharpe Ratio...
To quantify risk/reward for a hedge fund...
Which is ridiculous...
Because the Sharpe Ratio penalizes upward/downward variance equally.
I manage a small hedge fund (about $1 million)...
And if I'm averaging a 25% return...
But have a big year and do 50%...
The Sharpe Ratio penalizes me for "variance".
Simply analyzing your drawdowns...
To quantify the most important thing - "downside risk"...
And is far more meaningful then misapplied stats.
You are very perceptive to have a gut feeling...
That the way the "geniuses" around here...
Apply off-the-shelf freshman stats...
To very exotic games such as SNGs...
Is equally ridiculous.
The dogma they push...
Would result in the conclusion...
That winning the WSOP is not "statistically significant"...
Becuase you only play about (a guess) 2000-3000 hands to win.
I suspect that smart, good players...
Have far less variance...
Than what is "conventional wisdom" around here.
rm+
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|