Re: 10 Table NL 2000 on Party to reduce variance
This post is 100% wrong. I would say "do you see why?" because it sounds like you should if you just thought about it a little bit more (or perhaps if you got an A in stats instead of the B it seems you actually got) but I will just spell it out instead (although this actually should go in the stats forum or something?)
When you play hands, you get AN ESTIMATE of your WIN RATE. THAT ESTIMATE has variance. In addition, your ACTUAL WIN RATE has variance. This is where you are getting confused. The variance in the rate at which you win IS NOT AFFECTED by the number of hands that you play. Your style of play has a certain level of variance and that is that. It is true whether you play one hand or a million and one table or a million.
The variance of the ESTIMATE of the win rate, however, is inversely proportional to sample size (making certain assumptions about the distribution). Therefore, your true results will converge towards your expected results faster if you play more hands per hour. This does NOT MEAN that your variance is lower. It means that the variance of the ESTIMATE is lower.
Good day.
|