Quote:
Originally Posted by ggbruuce
This post got it. Seems like some people dont understand the formula though. You could also just explain it by saying the more money you put into the pot the more std dev will increase. I.e in HU you put in more money on avg as you say, and also 3b / 4b. When stacks increase std dev goes up. Std dev is a lot lower assuming you play short stacked.
Think the whole redline discussion is trivial though, but could be wrong about that. I think people read into it too much because most people overfold hence it increases your winrate to some extent. But also clearly when you play bigger pots on average your mistakes are clearly a lot more expensive. Comparing PLO vs NL is a good example i guess. Std dev is a lot higher in PLO despite winrates being twice as high on average. But you are also all in a lot with 60/40 equity.
just no..
this formula can be applied in poker , to get some data on the pools you're playing , but thats it ..
theres no correlation between money put in the pot and an increase in std deviation, without looking at other stats
HU std deviation is usually lower cause winrates are higher , again assuming that both players have the same winrate .. or that you're playing someone with a lower winrate that if he doubles up he might quit .. the bigger the edge the less std deviation you will have compared to 6max , so nothing to do with money put in the pot
std deviation is lower playing short stacked ? what .. mtts are purposely made to start deep to allow players to build a stack , and literally getting from an average stack of 200bbs to 30bbs after 5 to 6 hours, cause an mtt can't last 7 days.. clearly the shorter you are the more std deviation you will have ..
if you buy in for 20bbs in a cash game table , you're just lowering your winrate , you just lose less per hand .. thats one hand .. just cant interpret things the way its more convenient
PLO std deviation will naturally be higher on smaller samples , std deviation goes along with winrate .. so thats why you can't use this formula without introducing winrate.. over 1m hands , if you have a 10bb/100 winrate your std deviation will be lower than a 5bb/100 winrate at NLH .. one does not go without the other
comparing NLH with PLO , its not a good example , they are different games, but i'll give you that one , as im not 100% sure , the other arguments are very very easy to prove wrong
Edit: there's a variety of external factors that would need to be added to the formula, like hand sample, vpip , pfr, 3b , wwsf, winrate , stack size , average stack size etc etc etc to get close to make such assumptions
Last edited by MartimC; 05-08-2024 at 06:39 PM.