Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-28-2005, 05:41 PM
teamdonkey teamdonkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: where am i?
Posts: 247
Default Re: buying in short

[ QUOTE ]
That's precisely what people are arguing when they say you must cut your stakes in half and buy in for 100 BB instead of buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, thats a stupid arguement. And i'll retract my figure of 500k hands needed.... using my standard deviation, just shy of 250k hand samples would narrow your win rate to a 3BB/100 range (95% confidence), and you could statistically claim at that point, if your observed win rate was exactly the same for both sets of data, that the difference (if any) in buying in short vs big was not more than 3BB/100. With 20k hands all you can say is it's not costing you 10.75BB/100 (again using my SD, and assuming observed win rate for both is exactly the same).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-28-2005, 05:55 PM
rachelwxm rachelwxm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: nj
Posts: 288
Default Re: buying in short

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's precisely what people are arguing when they say you must cut your stakes in half and buy in for 100 BB instead of buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, thats a stupid arguement. And i'll retract my figure of 500k hands needed.... using my standard deviation, just shy of 250k hand samples would narrow your win rate to a 3BB/100 range (95% confidence), and you could statistically claim at that point, if your observed win rate was exactly the same for both sets of data, that the difference (if any) in buying in short vs big was not more than 3BB/100. With 20k hands all you can say is it's not costing you 10.75BB/100 (again using my SD, and assuming observed win rate for both is exactly the same).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the assumption of 2 sample t-test in this situation is violated because buyin short and full are highly correlated.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-28-2005, 05:55 PM
CarlSpackler CarlSpackler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 123
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

I've been learning and playing only SSNL for the last month (before this I was primarily playing STT's/MTT's). FWIW, whenever I see someone join my table without buying in full, especially if they only buy in for around half or less, I immediately categorize them as weak-tight/scared money/fish until they show me otherwise. Perhaps this is another advantage of buying in short at a higher level -- that many opponents will erroneously think you're weak-tight/scared money/fish when you buy in short, and thus won't play correctly against you (at least in the short term).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-28-2005, 07:18 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: buying in short

[ QUOTE ]
using my standard deviation, just shy of 250k hand samples would narrow your win rate to a 3BB/100 range (95% confidence),

[/ QUOTE ]
Your standard deviation appears to be much higher than mine. A side benefit of buying in short is that my SD is lower.

I don't think your win rate is so much lower that you need to get the 95% confidence interval to be so small to reject the hypothesis that buying in for 50 BB is only half as profitable as buying in for 100 BB.

[ QUOTE ]
With 20k hands all you can say is it's not costing you 10.75BB/100 (again using my SD, and assuming observed win rate for both is exactly the same).


[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Even if that were roughly 2 joint standard deviations (it's a lot higher than mine), you don't need 2 standard deviations of evidence before you can say anything. A Bayesian approach might say that you should reweight the hypothesis of equality upward by a factor of 3.1 relative to the hypothesis that there is a 1.5 standard deviation difference. (3.1 = exp(1.5^2/2)) So if you started with the assumption that the two were equally likely, you would update that to saying that equality is a 3.1:1 favorite over the difference in win rates that would be 1.5 standard deviations away from the observation. That's not bulletproof, but it would be a lot better than NO evidence, which is what thedustbustr offered.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.