[Fiasco]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to be > 20% in the 16s imho

[/ QUOTE ]

Well its clearly not impossible as Im doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't even played 500 tournies.
[censored] artard.

[/ QUOTE ]

speaking of retard, this is a very stupid line of thinking. Who the heck is going to continue at a level that theyre beating for over 20% ROI for 2000 SNGs? (or whatever sample size makes you happy, maybe 5000).

If you want to put some money up on my ability to maintain a 20% ROI over a certain number of $16 SNGs im willing to do that.

I love how regulars here turn into old coots when they here about a small sample size. "500?!! Why I remember once back in 1923, spacegravy himself had a losing period much longer than 500, clearly your results are meaningless son."

So do enlighten me, at what point do my results become meaningfull?

[/ QUOTE ]

How's a $500 even money bet that you can't run at >20% ROI in the Stars $16 NLH 9-man SnGs for the first 1000 you play, starting Dec 1st?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would make adjustments to this bet. Either Id need much better odds (because conventional wisdom and everybody on here seem to think that this is undoable) or Id want to keep my results so far (which is what I was suggesting at first).

My counter offer is an even money bet that I can finish my first 1000 $16s (starting a couple weeks ago when I started playing them) with an ROI of 20% or greater.