The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?

[citanul]

desdia,

curtains was being sarcastic. you apparently were not? that makes me sad.

i'm making my statement based on my limited history with him at some sngs, some mtts, and the nearly infinite hands my associates have played with him, and have all told me he is horrible.

gump,

you can choose to not have sharkscope collect your stats.

raptor,

no one is ging on record as saying that 5% isn't doable. we're going on record as saying that 10% isn't "easilly doable."

jo,

if we set up a quarter million dollar prop bet or so, you can be sure it wouldn't be left up to sharkscope to tell how well you did. as diablo says "we'd go to a lawyer, set up a contract, hold the money in escrow, have video cameras of you playing each time you play, etc."

citanul

[Jbrochu]

From Sharkscope FAQ:

"As of the 21st May 2006 we have a new data removal policy. You may click here or email [email protected] stating the username(s)/network(s) you wish to be removed and your data will be made inaccessible to all free users. Paying subscribers will still be able to see your number of games played, along with your ROI data and form. All other statistics including average profit, average stake and total profit will be inaccessible, along with all the remaining graphs. Hence, once blocked in this manner, no one will be able to calculate your total amount won or lost. All usernames blocked prior to this policy change will remain completely blocked from all users."

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been watching a few, they may be thinking at about five levels higher than me, but....

PokerStars Game #6675026075: Tournament #33938359, $1050+$50 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2006/10/18 - 00:50:38 (ET)
Table '33938359 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: JERRRY (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: capdan6 (1490 in chips)
Seat 3: lLive Free (1470 in chips)
Seat 4: thugmoneymkr (1470 in chips)
Seat 5: Halfrek (1480 in chips)
Seat 6: Harrington10 (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: **Luukky** (1450 in chips)
Seat 8: dragonlady7 (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: lilholdem954 (1640 in chips)
Halfrek: posts small blind 10
Harrington10: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
**Luukky**: raises 80 to 100
dragonlady7: folds
lilholdem954: folds
JERRRY: raises 1400 to 1500 and is all-in
capdan6: folds
lLive Free: folds
thugmoneymkr: folds
Halfrek: folds
Harrington10: folds
**Luukky**: calls 1350 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [As 9c 7c]
*** TURN *** [As 9c 7c] [5h]
*** RIVER *** [As 9c 7c 5h] [8h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
**Luukky**: shows [Qs Kd] (high card Ace)
JERRRY: shows [Jh Js] (a pair of Jacks)
JERRRY collected 2930 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2930 | Rake 0
Board [As 9c 7c 5h 8h]
Seat 1: JERRRY showed [Jh Js] and won (2930) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 2: capdan6 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: lLive Free folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: thugmoneymkr (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Halfrek (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: Harrington10 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: **Luukky** showed [Qs Kd] and lost with high card Ace
Seat 8: dragonlady7 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: lilholdem954 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[/ QUOTE ]


LLLLLLLOLLLLLLL I just played a 27 with JERRRRRY!1

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
and when i said that 10% roi was achievable i was including a 1.75% roi boost from rakeback. So a "sharkscope" roi of 8% i think is defineately achievable. I say this bc I do not think that the 1ks are noticeably more difficult than the party 530s when a decent amount of good players were playing them. and no matter what people say i know that a >10% roi was possible at them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes because of all the good players who played the $530s, one lucky soul was likely to have a 10% ROI after 1-2k of them (and of course 10% after 2000 tourneys means your true ROI could easily be 5-6%). That person happened to be you. Basically everyone else I know, whom at most you could be marginally better than, had much lower ROIs in the neighborhood of 3-6%.

[curtains]

Ok of course I'd never say that 5% wasn't doable so I have just about zero interest in making such a prop bet. I actually suspect that 5% is very doable. I just think that 10% clearly isn't. Also counting rakeback is absurd, no one does that when calculating ROI. This is especially true since most people aren't going after the Porsche, thus their rakeback is going to be a lot lower.

So basically because of the differences in rakeback amongst players, people should really stop using rakeback in their ROI figures, as it paints a very unclear picture of what's really going on. Once again, the good news is we have sharkscope which will make it impossible for anyone to just randomly throw out inflated figures and expect everyone to believe them.

Of course it will also be sad if my ROI settles in the 7% range on Sharkscope, but we will see what happens. I do believe the win %'s will be lower on stars than on party, but I could be wrong.

[Evenkeal]

I have no idea about the $1k sngs, but after reviewing (watching for a couple hours) the $300/$500 sngs, there are definitely many clear errors, (and also some errors that are not so clear). I think that an ROI of 8% before rakeback is possible here, although I don't have the roll to back up my words, nor do I want to explain what sort of mistakes I think players are making. Again, this is not a statement about the $1.1k sngs specifically, because I did not examine them. However, I assume that 7% after rakeback is possible.

[BvlyHls90210]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea about the $1k sngs, but after reviewing (watching for a couple hours) the $300/$500 sngs, there are definitely many clear errors, (and also some errors that are not so clear).

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAAA??? This thread is so retarded. How can you see a few mistakes and conclude that someone can make 8% of whatever over a large sample size? The only way that is going to happen is if there is a huge supply of fish into the game, and no one can credibly say that that is going to happen. If the mistakes are really as massive as you say, those bad players are going to go broke, and who is going to replace them and where are they going to come from?

[citanul]

bvly,

i usually don't like your posts, but this one is exquisite. people attempting to say what ROIs are possible by watching a few games are absolutely retarded.

citanul

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quote from bigballzpoker:[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been taking this for almost a week after a friend recommended it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/bsn/cell.html



[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
...what a tool

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is your point here? That these two things are somewhere in the same ballpark in terms of douchiness?

[BvlyHls90210]

[ QUOTE ]
bvly,

i usually don't like your posts, but this one is exquisite. people attempting to say what ROIs are possible by watching a few games are absolutely retarded.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks I guess? I hardly post, I didn't know there was so much to dislike, but I appreciate the compliment, backhanded as it may be.