Skip Hughes wrote:
Since there's a quote from me in there, I guess I'll point out that
I do agree that variance, is NOT a good predictor of short-term
swings ...
There are any number of ways to approach picking a better
short-term game, and it all depends on how many hands one is talking
about ... But I have also looked at it figuring that if you figure
to get one or two of a particular hand in an hour, there's an
excellent chance you will get NONE. So, suppose we make the cutoff
below those "likely", once or twice an hour hands
At the risk of overkill, I'll extend this thread and describe how I
apply this (with a modification).
When I'm considering the downside of an abbreviated period of play, I
tend to be looking at a play period of something like 10,000 hands.
I'm loathe to entirely discount the contribution of moderately
infrequent hands (those "one or two per hour" hands). But there's no
doubt that uncomfortable droughts of these hands do occur and give
reason for some discount in factoring their return.
In selecting which hands to "discount" return, I opt for those which
are expected to occur significantly short of 20 times during my
intended play. For these hands I'll cut the expected return to my
play by anywhere from 25% to 100%. I analyze the resulting ER and
variance of my planned play by adjusting hand payouts accordingly and
inputing these values into a program like winpoker.
For the 10,000 hand play noted, if I'm looking at JB I'll be inclined
to include quads at their full value and "0" out the SF and RF. Were
I looking at only 5,000 hands, I'll cut the quad pay by 40%-60%,
depending upon how conservative I wish to be (I'll be far more
forgiving for a $.25 game than $1 or $2).
If, on the other hand, I'm looking at DB and 10,000 hands, I now may
choose to include non-bonus quads at full value, or similarly discount
them by 20% or 30% if I'm looking for a conservative analysis. For
quad 2-4, I'm going to apply a discount of anywhere from 80% to 100%.
You can look for me to totally disregard quad Aces.
It should be clear that I tend to sweat the small stuff. Skip's broad
brush hand exclusions are quite likely to yield more than a
satisfactory gut feel for any given considered play.
In any case, this type of analysis can be quite useful when comparing
alternative plays under consideration. Under certain circumstances,
Jacks may become favored over a game with much higher return, such as
FP Deuces (mind you, particularly extreme circumstances ;). This
becomes especially the case when collecting a bonus is dependent upon
"going the distance" with your desired stake (or, "session bankroll",
if you prefer).
Aside from ER, variance is a very strong factor that should be
considered. Having a 3% edge on ER under this analysis has
significantly smaller advantage when there's a sharply higher variance
involved if you want a strong chance of coming out on top. Once you
discount the contribution of infrequent hands, the variance difference
between games that, on the whole, are close can now become sharply
different.
Programs like winpoker and Frugal pop out the variance in addition to
the ER for this analysis. Try it out with pick'em and Jacks and
you'll immediately see why pick'em can be much more brutal over a
limited number of hours' play.
It's important to bear in mind that in approaching a limited play, if
you anticipate playing a game that you normally hit regularly in your
other play and at your standard denomination, there's little reason to
go through this type of machination. Just make sure you're
sufficiently staked for the session to see you through the desired
play (as you might any other time).
However, if you're considering play of a game with higher variance or
at a higher denomination than what you normally hit, this type of up
front planning can better prepare you for what to expect and lessen
the likelihood of "gambler's remorse" hangover.
- Harry