Myths About Poker "variance" And "proof" That Small Ball Is Superior

[gfdsa146 0]

For those of us that can't process the OP, can you give it to us in English?

[copernicus 0]

For those of us that can't process the OP, can you give it to us in English?

see post 11

[antistuff 0]

It has been an integral part of huge change in my style of play, actually. I wouldnt expect that from anyone who isnt already a math based player though.

the difference between math based players and feel based players is purely an illusion. as a math based player surely you know this?

[copernicus 0]

the difference between math based players and feel based players is purely an illusion. as a math based player surely you know this?

Between math players and GOOD feel players I agree, but even then it depends on the situation. Eg in SnGs there is a huge difference between math and feel players, also in short stacked situations.However I was talking more about the mental approach to the game. Feel players will internalize something because they observe it and believe it. A math based player will rarely internalize something without digging beneath the logic to see the math. Eg if the differences were purely illusion there would be no debate about "survivors" vs "accumulators", the math is clearly in favor of the accumulators, but the feel/logic players cant get away from the "in order to win you have to survive" mode.

[antistuff 0]

Between math players and GOOD feel players I agree, but even then it depends on the situation. Eg in SnGs there is a huge difference between math and feel players, also in short stacked situations.However I was talking more about the mental approach to the game. Feel players will internalize something because they observe it and believe it. A math based player will rarely internalize something without digging beneath the logic to see the math. Eg if the differences were purely illusion there would be no debate about "survivors" vs "accumulators", the math is clearly in favor of the accumulators, but the feel/logic players cant get away from the "in order to win you have to survive" mode.

i know. i was just making a joke by being a little paradoxical. fwiw, as a i get better at poker i see myself thinking like you are. why make huge pots with small edges? i can get my stack in 55/45 in which case my expectation is 5% or i can keep the pot small and still get my 5% or even find a fold or make a little value bet and do a little better (i am aware of the problem with this last sentence, but i wrote it to illustrate my thinking more than to be mathematically accurate). this idea kind of hit me like a bag of bricks in the head one day and as i getter better and better at applying it i'm noticing my results getting better and better.

[gfdsa146 0]

The conclusions are that"variance" is poorly understood in the context of poker particularly with regard to the impact of hand selection and passing up +EV opportunities that are low probability/high payoff (their variance isnt that much greater than lower payoff but higher probability situations)since variance is not that big an issue, an alternative but related measure of hand quality, coefficient of variation needs some further analysisCOV is most controllable by playing a lot of hands with average probabilities of winning, and a few hands with very high probabilities of winning = small ball when stacks are deep enough to play pot control

what is this

[Actuary 3]

He's using COV to mean "Coef of variation", instead of Covariance, if that's what was confusingfrom above Coper says " Coefficient of Variation, standard deviation of profit/mean profit,"