Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="zachvac, post: 743230, member: 26306"]
And that's why when you look at tournament finishes over the long term (look at overall WPT for a good example) or at even single tables there are exactly as many pros as should proportionally be there. That's why if 1/9 of the field were playing for their first time there would be on average 1 person at the final table who were playing for the first time. Oh wait, you mean when you look at final tables there are proportionally more players recognized as good or pros? You mean if you look at WPT results you'll see a list that many think is accurate of the list of the best players in order? (Negreanu had a thing on this in his blog) Pretty big coincidence for something all luck.

Yep, technically the variance is the standard deviation squared (more accurately the standard deviation is the square root of the variance, but that's irrelevant), but in poker it basically just means anything 
that VARIES from the expected results. So technically winning a coin flip is variance since you were only supposed to win half the pot but won the whole thing. But most of the time people are talking about a big enough sample to be somewhat out of the ordinary but still short term enough for it to be expected. Most single sessions won't give you your exact expected amount of winnings, even if they will all average out to your expected amount.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us