|
|
|
|
#1
11-19-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would a player be better at MTT than STT?
fyi to get some idea of what your winrate is you'll need to play something like 1-2k stts or 5-10k mtts
even then its possible to run quite a bit below or above expectation. my lifetime roi in sngs is around 12% but ive had a 1k+ game losing streak. and variance in mtts is waaaay worse. 400 stts or whatever is close to meaningless and 90 mtts is meaningless 
|
|
#2
11-19-2007, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why would a player be better at MTT than STT?
Don't look at the raw numbers...look at your game!
[ QUOTE ] 400 stts or whatever is close to meaningless and 90 mtts is meaningless [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I actually am a winning player and it is only variance!!!?? Yeah Ha!!! At ministacks I was a winner(+600%) over my first 250+ 18sngs and small mtts..... -600% over the next 150.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I had 24 consecutiver 18 man SNGs without a single KK or AA(the suprise was I was up 50% over those??) I can't imagine the strange streaks the high volume guys have seen.
|
|
#3
11-19-2007, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why would a player be better at MTT than STT?
Given the same skill advantage in both formats, a winning player should win more per tournament at MTTs than STTs.
Tournaments are about finding edges and you'll find more edges over the course of several hours against dozens of fish than you will in one hour versus just a handful of them. Consequently, if you're a winning player you'll win more per MTT than STT, on average.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
