The Bax Limit Theorem
 

I was going through Bluff magazine's database of tournament results, and happened to check out the stats for Johnny Bax on Stars. The guy is obviously one of the top online players, and his overall ROI backs this up. The wierd thing is that his performance isn't consistent over all buy-in levels. He is killing the game at $100 BIs and under, but above that he is leaking like a sieve. This is not some sample size issue, this is over 400 tourneys at those levels since 1/1/06. I don't believe it has anything to do with field size either, since he is playing all sorts of field sizes at every level.

The question is, why does he seem to reach his "limit" at $150+ buy ins?

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

Still could be a sample size issue. Especially if you are using ROI as your guide. One sunday million win and I think he will be well into the black numbers for buy-ins over $150.

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

I'm not saying that this is why his results are like that, as there's obviously a ton of variance even with that many tourneys, but um... there's higher skill level at higher buyins? If you don't have higher roi at $10 rebuys than $100 rebuys, you need a bigger sample size.

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

You are stupid

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

I played next to a higher-buyin tournament player at TurningStone today.

He was about 50 years old and is an experienced high-buyin expert.

He told me his secret was ALWAYS folding the first hand of a new level.

In fact, he stressed that if an opponent went allin with KK and showed him the first hand of a $1K tournament, he would gladly fold AA.

I mean, whats best case scenario? You double up... who cares!

LOL EXPERTS

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I safely infer that this comment is directed at OP despite the fact that the post indicates it is RE:Shermn27? My feelings are fragile.

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I safely infer that this comment is directed at OP despite the fact that the post indicates it is RE:Shermn27? My feelings are fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

oops, was directed at OP

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I safely infer that this comment is directed at OP despite the fact that the post indicates it is RE:Shermn27? My feelings are fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

if no rpelier is chosen, it, by default, chooses the last replier available when you start your post

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

I'm not gonna bother to look up his results but I know he kills the 109r which should definitely be considered $150+ BI tourney.

Re: The Bax Limit Theorem
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna bother to look up his results but I know he kills the 109r which should definitely be considered $150+ BI tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does kill the 100r (only the prize pool portion is listed in the database not the fee), the 100 freezeout, and on down. But he falls off a cliff (no pun intended) at $150+, despite having won $10k in a $150 a few weeks ago. I'm not trying to bash him or anything, it just seems like there must be an explanation for this trend.

P.S. You call me stupid for posting this topic, but you let it slide when someone claims that a sample of over 400 tourneys at about -20% ROI is meaningless?