Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Live Low-stakes NL Discussion of up to 3/5 live no-limit, pot-limit and spread-limit Texas Hold'em poker games, situations and strategies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2019, 05:37 PM   #126
browni3141
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 3,132
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by cannabusto View Post
I'll just respond to this post since this really sums up the crux of the disagreement.

Standard error of the mean is not a measure of spread or dispersion in the data points, like variance or sd is. It is a measure of the spread of sample means, and so, is measuring how close we are likely to be to the population mean. I think we all agree here.

I believe I can bust through our disagreement in this post. Yes, you're right that for any given sample of a poker player, the higher the variance/sd, the higher the SEM. The numerator in the SEM calculation is increased, which necessarily increases the SEM.

But of course every poker player's results is a separate population in statistical terms. Each will have a different distribution based on talent, tendencies, and playing style.

Despite LAGs having greater SDs, and thus greater numerators in the SEM calculation, they have greater Ns too, and so the denominator grows and shrinks the SEM being calculated despite the numerator value being higher than the average poker player's.
Okay.

Quote:
This is not shown in application because we measure N by hours or by hands. When actually, theory tells us the best way to measure N in our case is by measuring amount of cards seen AKA betting rounds played. Unlike most statistical applications, we know in poker that noise/luck/randomness is entirely a function of the cards. The difference in Real Bucks - Sklansky Bucks is entirely accounted for by how the cards runout. But the calculation assumes that all Ns are created equal.
What theory tells us we should measure N by cards seen? Who goes around measuring variance and win-rate by card? I have literally never seen this before.

Quote:
And so that's where the issue lies--yes, the raw measure of SEM will be higher for LAGs. Ironically, this is the very reason they converge to EV faster--by being exposed to more and more noise/outlier events/luck sooner by virtue of playing more hands than most players, each subsequent rare event impacts the set less and less. The LAG encounters more rare events per hour than does the TAG. Over an infinite sample, the LAG gets all of the luck events that could happen to him out of the way sooner than the TAG. And so his EV is solely a function of his skill at a sooner point, whereas the TAG must get closer to infinity than the LAG. This is why 100 LAG hours are less noisy than 100 TAG hours despite being more dispersed/higher variance. Again, this doesn't mean playing every hand is good if it lessens your EV.
You're not arguing about anything that can be measured, or at least I'm not sure how you think it should be measured. I feel like you're just ignoring well-established math now.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 05:38 PM   #127
browni3141
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 3,132
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke4fun View Post
In other words, models and hypothetical scenarios are not sufficient for you, you are looking for something more concrete.

"I am not saying he's right, but he's not wrong..."
Yes, I would like something more concrete, because my own mathematical models show that Lags should have greater variance and lower confidence in their win-rate than Tags. It may not be true in practice due to flaws in the models, which would be very interesting.

I'm arguing based on these models, but I'm not necessarily arguing that the models are accurate representations of the real world.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 05:44 PM   #128
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Yes, I would like something more concrete, because my own mathematical models show that Lags should have greater variance and lower confidence in their win-rate than Tags. It may not be true in practice due to flaws in the models, which would be very interesting.

I'm arguing based on these models, but I'm not necessarily arguing that the models are accurate representations of the real world.
If a TAG can successfully increase the EV of fringe hands that are -EV or EV neutral, is it theoretically possible to lower the variance of the TAG by adding those hands?

If that TAG is able to do so with enough hands given his improved read and poker knowledge, and cross into the threshold of LAG, isn't it theoretically possible for the LAG to have lower variance than the TAG?
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 06:10 PM   #129
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,314
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke4fun View Post
If a TAG can successfully increase the EV of fringe hands that are -EV or EV neutral, is it theoretically possible to lower the variance of the TAG by adding those hands?

If that TAG is able to do so with enough hands given his improved read and poker knowledge, and cross into the threshold of LAG, isn't it theoretically possible for the LAG to have lower variance than the TAG?
This is exactly what Ive done over the past 1800-2000 hours. Ive slowly but surely added in more and more starting hands into my raising range and from earlier positions. My original goal was to try to break even on those fringe hands which would get me more overall action on my premiums.

As I got better post flop (and you will be forced to get better if you play more hands and put yourself in more marginal situations), these fringe hands weren't just break even for me. They became profitable hands which increased my win rate dramatically but didnt raise my overall variance (measured by StnDev and also by just looking at session by session results in real time).

Then I started adding in a strategy 3 betting lite with hands like AJ / J9s / A4s / 87s / KT ect. Again, my goal was to break even on those hands by 3 betting people I knew folded a lot to 3 bets in general or when they have sizing tells that were pretty obvious. This "strategy" has also proven to be +EV overall including profit from taking it down preflop as well as any profit/loss coming post flop....and again, it gives me more action on my premiums when I 3 bet.

Ive done a few more similar things but all together they led to me passing into LAG zone. I win a lot more money without showdown now. I play a lot more small-medium pots. I win or lose $25-$150 a lot more times per day than I used to and overall, I'm winning more of these pots (and for more total money) than I'm losing. That leads to more intra-day variance in my stack size but its like the stock market. My stack bounces up and down in small amounts throughout the day but most often trends up as I win more than I lose in these small to medium pots.

Result is higher win rate and lower or maybe equal variance. It has absolutely led to less and smaller down swings which I'm sure is a result of a higher win rate.

So there's my non mathematical anecdotal evidence that variance for a LAG is lower or at least lower if you wanted to do some sort of Win Rate / Variance calculation.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:12 PM   #130
AlanBostick
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
AlanBostick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Old Man Red Bull (he/him)
Posts: 9,762
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
What theory tells us we should measure N by cards seen? Who goes around measuring variance and win-rate by card? I have literally never seen this before.
This, this, a thousand times this!
AlanBostick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:23 PM   #131
cannabusto
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,558
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Yes, I would like something more concrete, because my own mathematical models show that Lags should have greater variance and lower confidence in their win-rate than Tags. It may not be true in practice due to flaws in the models, which would be very interesting.

I'm arguing based on these models, but I'm not necessarily arguing that the models are accurate representations of the real world.
The models do show this, you're right. And I acknowledge it's entirely unconventional to measure N in this way.

I am contending that poker is unique in this way. In most applications, noise is much more intangible. It makes sense to assume noise is evenly dispersed. In poker, we know all of the noise is caused by cards. So, the more cards seen, the more EV evens out(the EV does not change, just becomes stable more quickly). It's the same reason players choose to run it twice. In poker, some sets of N are richer than others, and so, converge to the mean faster.
cannabusto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:45 PM   #132
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,556
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Alright, guys, we're done here. Take this in-depth variance discussion to Poker Theory, please. The discussion has been very interesting, and y'all have handled it well, but it's eating the thread alive, and the emperics are what matter to 99.4% of the players ITF. For those of you really interested, I'm sure Poker Theory would be thrilled to host a continuation of this discussion,

If you'd like, I'll even carve out the last few days worth into a separate thread and move it there, though that will have to wait until the weekend is over if you'd like me to do it.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2019, 04:52 PM   #133
browni3141
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 3,132
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
Alright, guys, we're done here. Take this in-depth variance discussion to Poker Theory, please. The discussion has been very interesting, and y'all have handled it well, but it's eating the thread alive, and the emperics are what matter to 99.4% of the players ITF. For those of you really interested, I'm sure Poker Theory would be thrilled to host a continuation of this discussion,

If you'd like, I'll even carve out the last few days worth into a separate thread and move it there, though that will have to wait until the weekend is over if you'd like me to do it.
I'm not sure if this is better suited for Poker Theory or Probability. I think it is best suited for here, but if you disagree I'd prefer it to continue somewhere than to not continue at all. If you do move it, I hope you continue to read and post if you have something to contribute, because I believe you also have misconceptions about variance, and the topic is bound to come up countless times in the future and cause more arguments.

Empirics matter to me, too. However, not a single person has posted any empirical evidence on the topic at all. I have asked several times for you to support your argument with evidence, yet you have not come up with any.

I'm curious how you expect to handle this in the future. If someone comes in and asks questions related to this topic he's going to get barraged with conflicting answers, because neither side has convinced the other, and neither side should be content to let the other spread misinformation.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 09:38 AM   #134
cannabusto
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,558
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

I feel like we resolved it. I was wrong about SEM actually being lower according to the calculation itself. I assumed this had to be true based on the empirical evidence I too have seen, but don't know how to conjure up. But, even assuming greater spread in results, which may be incorrect, I still contend that SEM is smaller in practice due to N being inflated by seeing more cards. This is because all of the noise in poker is a function of seeing cards. And again, this is the whole reason to run it twice and whatnot. But we can't measure N that way, and so we don't see that in the math.

I've learned a lot, we may still disagree on my conclusion since I can't show it empirically, but I think this is a good stopping point and we understand each other's points now. So feel free to continue, but I can't say I'll participate. I definitely won't here if mods don't want it.
cannabusto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 09:46 AM   #135
Petrucci
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,870
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Regardless of what the mods think, as a longtime poster on this forum i really enjoyed reading this in depth discussion. Containing lots of good reflections/arguments from both sides. Solid stuff guys.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 03:11 PM   #136
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Garick, I assume you will be moving this discussion to its own thread, and I do hope that if you do, that it will stay in LLSNL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cannabusto View Post
This is because all of the noise in poker is a function of seeing cards. And again, this is the whole reason to run it twice and whatnot. But we can't measure N that way, and so we don't see that in the math.
I think there is a misconception in the usage of noise, almost implying that any result that H loses is considered noise.

That's not noise.

Running a hand more than once is almost the antithesis of getting rid of noise. You are hoping to create more noises.

A player with 10% equity is hoping that running the hand 3 times will result in him winning at least one of them: 1/3 or 33%. In other words, he's hoping to create the "noise" that allows him to improve his result in short term variance.

Last edited by poke4fun; 02-17-2019 at 03:16 PM.
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 10:37 PM   #137
browni3141
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 3,132
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrucci View Post
Regardless of what the mods think, as a longtime poster on this forum i really enjoyed reading this in depth discussion. Containing lots of good reflections/arguments from both sides. Solid stuff guys.
Thanks for that. Sometimes I think my posts aren’t appreciated in this subforum, I get salty and it leaks into my posts as arrogant/condescending or otherwise negative.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 11:58 PM   #138
cannabusto
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,558
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke4fun View Post
Garick, I assume you will be moving this discussion to its own thread, and I do hope that if you do, that it will stay in LLSNL.



I think there is a misconception in the usage of noise, almost implying that any result that H loses is considered noise.

That's not noise.

Running a hand more than once is almost the antithesis of getting rid of noise. You are hoping to create more noises.

A player with 10% equity is hoping that running the hand 3 times will result in him winning at least one of them: 1/3 or 33%. In other words, he's hoping to create the "noise" that allows him to improve his result in short term variance.
This is just wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to put it.

Noise is unexplained variability in winrates, or whatever we may be measuring. In poker, the unexplained variability is a result of the cards dealt.

The best way to work out unwanted noise is to increase N. That is what happens when you run it multiple times. Rather than being all in with AK v QQ once, you're all in with it twice. And everyone gets twice as close to the long run.
cannabusto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 11:58 PM   #139
cannabusto
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,558
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Thanks for that. Sometimes I think my posts aren’t appreciated in this subforum, I get salty and it leaks into my posts as arrogant/condescending or otherwise negative.
I've found your posts to be insightful and valuable.
cannabusto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:40 AM   #140
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by cannabusto View Post
This is just wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to put it.

Noise is unexplained variability in winrates, or whatever we may be measuring. In poker, the unexplained variability is a result of the cards dealt.

The best way to work out unwanted noise is to increase N. That is what happens when you run it multiple times. Rather than being all in with AK v QQ once, you're all in with it twice. And everyone gets twice as close to the long run.
No.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...twice-1667202/

Again, I will stress that the goal to run it twice IS to create noise, not to reduce it.
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:51 AM   #141
cannabusto
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,558
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke4fun View Post
No.



https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...twice-1667202/



Again, I will stress that the goal to run it twice IS to create noise, not to reduce it.
You're not telling me why, first of all. Secondly, post #4 in that thread says what I'm saying. I don't understand how the thread speaks to there being more noise whatsoever. I can only conclude you misunderstand what is meant by noise.

Please don't refer to multiple runouts as noisy. It makes things messier, more complex, etc. But it lessens noise in the statistical sense by causing outcomes that are more in line with the equities more often.
cannabusto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 03:32 AM   #142
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

First of all, what does noise mean to you in this context?

Applying the concept of noise in a situation where Hero has 10% equity is to increase its likelihood of winning in “short term,” aka variance. Assume H is to run the river 10x with 10% equity and wins the first river card, any subsequent river card resulting in H winning can be considered noise because it distorted H’s actual EV.

So when you ask to run it twice, you are not actually hoping to realize your equity, you are hoping to run above it. I thought that link explained pretty well that running it twice doesn’t change your actual EV.

Running it twice is actually a pretty bad example.

However, yes, if you can run it a million times and have 51% equity, it would certainly benefit you.

On the flip side, 49% might prefer to live in the noise and run it far fewer times.
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 10:57 AM   #143
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,556
An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Carving this discussion out of the winrates thread, as it was taking over. The participants asked that it stay ITF, rather than moving to Poker Theory. Enjoy!
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 11:33 AM   #144
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,556
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Thanks for that. Sometimes I think my posts aren’t appreciated in this subforum, I get salty and it leaks into my posts as arrogant/condescending or otherwise negative.
Here's an example of that, and it's self-perpetuating. When you post stuff like this it makes people less likely to value your posts and more likely to get mad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Empirics matter to me, too. However, not a single person has posted any empirical evidence on the topic at all. I have asked several times for you to support your argument with evidence, yet you have not come up with any.
This is simply not true. I did post evidence of it, and you responded to that evidence. In fact, you agreed with the results but said:
Quote:
...the difference between variance and swings. It turns out mpethy is not talking about variance in the statistical sense at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
What we're talking about here is maybe not the technical definition of variance. I dunno. But we're talking about having big swings in session, and big swings among sessions when we say that lags have fewer and smaller swings.
So mpethy even says himself he's not talking about the technical definition of variance. He's talking about swings.
This is the empirics that matters to most posters. You guys enjoy your technical math/semantics discussion about what the definition of variance is, but the important info for most players is understanding what styles are swingier. That's also what most players mean when they talk about variance, whether that is mathematical definition or not.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:01 PM   #145
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Let's just establish terminology before moving forward if we hope to have a fruitful discussion.

Statistical noise:

Quote:
https://www.statisticshowto.datascie...istical-noise/

Statistical noise is the random irregularity we find in any real life data. They have no pattern. One minute your readings might be too small. The next they might be too large. These errors are usually unavoidable and unpredictable.
Quote:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...tistical-noise

Statistical noise refers to variability within a sample, stochastic disturbance in a regression equation, or estimation error. This noise is often represented as a random variable.
In other words, if we look at a large sample plotted out using scatter chart, data that are outliers and unexplainable can be considered statistical noises.

In this context of running it multiple times, in which I referenced in this discussion:

Quote:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...twice-1667202/

You can verify that (0.34646)*(0.32353)+(1-0.34646)*(0.35862) = 0.34646 so that Player 2's overall equity is the same whether or not they run it twice.
If running it twice has no effect in your EV and the valid sample size of a hand scenario is most certainly in the thousands, what exactly is the purpose of running it more than once?

For someone with a significantly worse hand? It is the hope to have much better result than actual EV. So the worse hand that you have, the more likely that any positive result is an outlier in a large sample. It is not hard to see that you are indeed hoping to create noise - not in a sense that you are actually creating it, but the result is the noise.
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:05 PM   #146
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: *** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
This is the empirics that matters to most posters. You guys enjoy your technical math/semantics discussion about what the definition of variance is, but the important info for most players is understanding what styles are swingier. That's also what most players mean when they talk about variance, whether that is mathematical definition or not.
Are we sticking with LAG is less swingier than TAG and NIT?

Like I said, I am fine with that belief for personal gain, but there is a ton of caveats to go with that.
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:55 PM   #147
Jay S
old hand
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Balancing by misreading my hand
Posts: 1,371
Re: An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Good read. The things I miss not following that thread...

I do have a stats background. browni's mathematical analysis is correct and generalizable; you cannot decrease variance by substituting a certain outcome (e.g. folding) with a distribution over multiple outcomes (calling or raising). It seems like taking tons of small gambles should largely cancel out and result in lower overall variance, but that's simply not how it works. Total variance is the sum of the variances of each individual gamble; you can't reduce it by adding more gambles. (Running it twice decreases variance because you're not adding a second gamble, you're splitting a gamble for X into two gambles for 0.5X.)

That said, preflop is not the whole story, as a few people have pointed out. There can be other aspects of a good LAG's game that decrease variance and explain the empirical results. Betting/raising to steal a pot is a gamble, but so is checking, so is barreling an overpair on a wet board, etc. Estimating the effects of flop & turn decisions on variance is extremely complicated. The decision tree is huge, with many outcomes whose probabilities are subjective and Villain-dependent.
Jay S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 12:57 PM   #148
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay S View Post
(Running it twice decreases variance because you're not adding a second gamble, you're splitting a gamble for X into two gambles for 0.5X.)
Can you elaborate this further?

Follow-up question: is running it twice beneficial to higher equity or lower equity?
poke4fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 01:17 PM   #149
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,556
Re: An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Let us please not turn this in to a benefits of RIT discussion. RIT has no effect on EV, and is therefore not more advantageous to either the higher or the lower equity. This has been well proven a zillion times.

What RIT does have an effect on is variance, so we can discuss its effect there. I'm not sure how to elaborate on Jay S's point, though. It seems pretty clear. Because you have two smaller gambles, rather than one larger gamble, you will average closer to your expected EV.

Here's a toy example: You are AI for $100 with 50% equity. Your EV is $50, but you will never end up with $50. You will always end up with $100 or zero.

Now you RIT. Half the time you split and end up with exactly your EV of $50. Only a quarter of the time do you end up with $100 and only a quarter of the time with nothing.

Your EV hasn't changed at all, but your observed results are usually closer to it than they would have been if you just ran it once.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 01:38 PM   #150
poke4fun
veteran
 
poke4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,185
Re: An in-depth discussion of the relation of playing style to variance: warning, math inside

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
Let us please not turn this in to a benefits of RIT discussion. RIT has no effect on EV, and is therefore not more advantageous to either the higher or the lower equity. This has been well proven a zillion times.
Actually it does in the sense for someone with significantly lower EV. Basically you get an extra chance to "bink" it.

But you know that if the scenario runs out 1 million times, there is no such thing as binking it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
What RIT does have an effect on is variance, so we can discuss its effect there. I'm not sure how to elaborate on Jay S's point, though. It seems pretty clear. Because you have two smaller gambles, rather than one larger gamble, you will average closer to your expected EV.

Here's a toy example: You are AI for $100 with 50% equity. Your EV is $50, but you will never end up with $50. You will always end up with $100 or zero.

Now you RIT. Half the time you split and end up with exactly your EV of $50. Only a quarter of the time do you end up with $100 and only a quarter of the time with nothing.

Your EV hasn't changed at all, but your observed results are usually closer to it than they would have been if you just ran it once.
It's basically a coin flip scenario. We had already talked about this. If we do not know the EV of a scenario, data sample of running it 100x could be as misleading as running it 10x.

I also do not understand how RIT lowers variance, hence I asked. If my EV remains the same whether it's running it once or twice, it's no different than I am running it once in two different hands with the same equity. Or in the coin flip analogy, I will basically take another coin flip. So how is it lowering my variance?
poke4fun is offline   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 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online