[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've played SNGs and they have the highest variance except for MTTs. You can read threads about it in the SnG forum.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow I'm very surprised by this. You sure?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure he's incorrect.
[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno..but its interesting...
Why SNGs have more varience than ring games
[/ QUOTE ]
This line is all you really need:
If you are a small ROI earner, then ring games might have less variance if you are good at them.
He's talking about someone who is better at limit than they are at sngs. Also, I know it'll freak most of the math people out on this board, but I have serious problems with the SD measures as they relate to winrate. I don't think they are anywhere near accurate enough, and we shouldn't be assuming a normal distribution to analyze the math in poker.
I don't know what we should be using, and maybe(likely) nothing is perfect, but the way we do it now, there is a lot of room for error. Of course, the biggest problem is that most people tend to ignore that error when they run good, thinking instead that they are just a higher winner, or at least the interval that their winrate should fall in is higher than it really is, and then they think they're a 1 in a million case when they start to run just as bad. If I get really bored and people are actually interested I'll try to put together my thoughts a little more coherently. But, for now, I think that makes enough sense. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]