my SD dropped?

Piz0wn0reD!!!!!! · #1 01-05-2005, 11:34 PM

At 100NL full ring my SD was 36BB/100 (144$/hr). I just switched to SH and my SD droped to 25BB/100 (after 16,000 hands). Is this accurate? Also what does this mean? Is there LESS varience at the SH games? WTF?

Thanks

gaming_mouse · #2 01-06-2005, 05:56 AM

Yes,

I am fairly sure SH games have less variance (not 100% tho). This seems counter-inuitive since you will be playing more.

But, very very very roughly, you can think of it as follows: When you play a 10-handed game and enter a pot, you have a 1 in 10 chance of winning. In a 6-handed game, 1 in 6. It's like the difference between playing red/black in roulette versus playing a single numer -- except a less extreme version. And it's easy to see that the single number has higher variance.

Also jason1990, I think, was going to write an article on the accuracty of SD estimates -- I don't know if he did or not. That may have some bearing here, but I think the explanation above is the correct one, more or less. Especially given the size of your sample.

gm

AngryCola · #3 01-06-2005, 06:15 AM

I don't play much short-handed. But I thought I always heard the variance was higher. Everyone always recommends a larger bankroll for short-handed games, so I assumed the variance to be higher.

Seems logical that it would be higher. But I've been known to be wrong about these sorts of things.

gaming_mouse · #4 01-06-2005, 06:56 AM

I remembered where I read it. There's an article about it here:

http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/poker/IRC/mm-sh-var.txt

Piz0wn0reD!!!!!! · #5 01-06-2005, 06:09 PM

I also have heard from a lot of people that SH has bigger swings. If it does have less varience, thats great. In the first 16k hands, ive hardly run bad at all. I think ive only had 2 or 3 losing days. I better go knock on some wood, as im sure this trend wont last.

gaming_mouse · #6 01-06-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also have heard from a lot of people that SH has bigger swings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have too. Perhaps this is one of those cases where common wisdom isn't correct. That article I posted makes a very strong case, backed up with a lot of evidence, for SH having less variance. I'm inclined to believe it barring other (non-anecdotal) evidence to the contrary.

gm

uuDevil · #7 01-07-2005, 01:01 AM

"They" also say that aggression increases variance, but there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. Although I don't play shorthanded, I expect the aggression level is greater than in full games. The combination of starting shorthanded with extra aggression should reduce the number of players seeing each street compared to full games. This means fewer hands will go to showdown and pots will be smaller. Small pots and a greater chance to win when you decide to play should give lower variance.

On the other hand, it is correct to play more loosely than in a full game. This would increase variance.

If someone could work out the details of these relationships (develop a simple model), it might make a good article for the online magazine.

AngryCola · #8 01-07-2005, 05:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone could work out the details of these relationships (develop a simple model), it might make a good article for the online magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this issue.

I nominate gm to write the article. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

gaming_mouse · #9 01-07-2005, 05:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone could work out the details of these relationships (develop a simple model), it might make a good article for the online magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to build a model here is the wrong way to approach the problem. All you need to do is analyze empirical data, which you cannot argue with. The article I linked to does that, and is overwhelming evidence that SH games have smaller variance.

The only objection anyone could have to have those results is that they are from the IRC database, rather than real money games. This is a fair objection, but I would be willing to bet the results will hold for real money as well.

Anyone with a large enough PT database can filter on 6 max games and see for themselves. I don't have enough hands to verify myself, but anyone else can. I'd like to see.

gm

EDIT: Holy sh*t, AngryCola. We literally repsonded at the same time to the exact same quote. Weird.

uuDevil · #10 01-07-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to build a model here is the wrong way to approach the problem. All you need to do is analyze empirical data, which you cannot argue with. The article I linked to does that, and is overwhelming evidence that SH games have smaller variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true if all you want to do is know whether variance is lesser or greater.

It would also be interesting to investigate why it is lesser or greater. What are the factors that influence variance? How relatively important are they? How do they interact? A model would help make this clear.