Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="cAPSLOCK, post: 1544103, member: 42960"] I've been thinking about this for a while now and it is interesting to me. We might need a mathematician to weigh in. I am NOT one, as you will soon see. But I think most of us are defining variance as runbad/good or down/upswings. These things are related to variance, but they do not define it. Now, I am not sure if we should consider winrate when we talk about variance. But if we should, then we are missing an important part of the calculation ITT. At first I wrote a post here supporting the idea that leaving out the decreased winrate induced by MT play we are forgetting the effect it would be having on our swings. But the more I am thinking about it the more I become convinced that winrate is another thing entirely. But swings might have more to do with playstyle than skill. For example many losing players are steady consistent losers over the long haul. I think what many are talking about ITT is not decreasing VARIANCE but decreasing variance/expected value. Or perhaps what we want is to make the dispersion of our variance to be more manageable over the long term. If I flip coins... and start flipping 10x more at a time my "runs of X over N" are not going to change one bit. One problem with high volume play is the benefit of smoothing out the valleys more quickly, is offset by the speed at which you approach the next swing. And I can't let the idea of winrate completely off the hook. Even if our variance remains the same, where our winrate falls in the distribution matters quite a bit whether or not we are seeing lots of swings. Finally this thread has proven that high volume play in X time can have the effect of either reducing or increasing a players tilt, and this depends on the player. Lots of people convinced in this thread that they are right. I am not quite convinced we are all even talking about the same thing. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us