Finish Distribution question - Page 2

bad_egg · #11 02-06-2006, 02:31 AM

You're just silly. I mean-- this makes absolutely no sense. How can more 1sts > 3rds > 2nds be better than 1sts > 2nds > 3rds?

Ridiculous. The ideal distribution is intuitive-- and yes, I have more 1sts > 2nds > 3rds at the 109s and 215s and 55s

The only thing I have to say about your distribution is that I don't understand why you don't have more 8th-10th places. The only explanation that I can think of is that your sample size is too small to be meaningful.

***edit--- I just realized that these were 9-person SNGs.. maybe your early exit numbers are good.

GreekHouse · #12 02-06-2006, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You're just silly. I mean-- this makes absolutely no sense. How can more 1sts > 3rds > 2nds be better than 1sts > 2nds > 3rds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily. If you're getting more 2nds than 3rds, it might just mean that you're not getting ITM enough. For instance:

14/12/11 < 14/11/13

Obviously, if your ITM is the same, then 1>2>3 is optimal, but if that's your distribution, then there's no guarantee that you can't make more by getting ITM more.

smartalecc5 · #13 02-06-2006, 02:44 AM

*cough* brag post *cough*

haha

bad_egg · #14 02-06-2006, 02:57 AM

So are you still saying that "normally, 1sts > 3rds > 2nds is considered the best"? or is there some disclaimer on this now?

The question is about an "ideal" finish distribution, yes? Ideally, 100% 1sts would be the best. The closer you are to 100% 1sts, the better. Which is closer to 100% firsts?

Maximizing ROI is the real goal, but it is a separate question from "ideal finish distribution".

We are all capable of looking at two sets of real numbers and determining that the one in which the ROI is higher is better. I might be mistaken in thinking that the OPs question wasn't about that though.

GreekHouse · #15 02-06-2006, 03:37 AM

Well obviously 100% 1sts is ideal, but it is also completely unattainable unless you cheat. As you said the goal is to maximize ROI. Now obviously if you have 2nds > 1sts or 3rds > 1sts it is usually the case that you would do better by playing in a manner that will get you more firsts, though it's theoretically possible that somebody can get ITM so much that it doesn't matter that they're not getting many firsts.

Similarly, it is probably easier for most players to maximize ROI by "sneaking in" to the money and cutting down on their number of seconds, thus attaining the distribution of 1>3>2. This is due to the fact that the difference in prize money between 4th and 3rd is bigger than the difference between 3rd and 2nd. Also, it is because you generally will take a more aggressive approach once you get into the top three in order to maximize your chances of getting first and will be willing to take more risks 3-handed.

bigballz · #16 02-06-2006, 08:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well obviously 100% 1sts is ideal, but it is also completely unattainable unless you cheat. As you said the goal is to maximize ROI. Now obviously if you have 2nds > 1sts or 3rds > 1sts it is usually the case that you would do better by playing in a manner that will get you more firsts, though it's theoretically possible that somebody can get ITM so much that it doesn't matter that they're not getting many firsts.

Similarly, it is probably easier for most players to maximize ROI by "sneaking in" to the money and cutting down on their number of seconds, thus attaining the distribution of 1>3>2. This is due to the fact that the difference in prize money between 4th and 3rd is bigger than the difference between 3rd and 2nd. Also, it is because you generally will take a more aggressive approach once you get into the top three in order to maximize your chances of getting first and will be willing to take more risks 3-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was what I was looking for, ty.

eyedol · #17 02-06-2006, 12:31 PM

I also began to wonder after reading Newts post so this thread was interesting. Would be nice to take a look at other $215-players finish distributions.

Ps. I've been reading here for a while but this was my first post ^^ Ds.

bad_egg · #18 02-06-2006, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, it is probably easier for most players to maximize ROI by "sneaking in" to the money and cutting down on their number of seconds, thus attaining the distribution of 1>3>2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that we have a different working definition of the word "ideal". Ideal is very rarely the "easiest" of anything, but instead something that one aspires to attain.

This is a ridiculous argument. The OP has a good ROI and good results. The question of "ideal distribution" actually is intuitive--- and definitely not 1 > 3 > 2 --- no matter whether it's easier or not.

Playing poker in a way that most of this board thinks will tend to result in a 1 > 3 > 2 distribution. Playing post-flop well will give you a 1 > 2 > 3 distribution. I think that you set your sights too low if your "ideal" is anything but 1 > 2 > 3, but that's just my opinion.