Future of sng's online?

[suzzer99]

Variance per set, or per hour will be decreased the more tables you play. If you could play 1000 tables in a set, it would be just like playing 1000 SNGs in a month. You could have confidence intervals that your true win rate is +/- 3% or whatever. You can't do that with 8 tables.

[braminc]

[ QUOTE ]


If one table plays 100 hands per hour, that's 1000 hours of a solid poker player losing. 1000 hours. If an SNG player lost money over the course of 1000 SNGs, I doubt many on this forum would believe them to be winners.

zip

[/ QUOTE ]

every snger who plays higher limits will have 1k breakevens and 1kgame losing streaks if they play 5000 or more games. its quite normal actually.

[braminc]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem like anyone really saw my edit so I'll post it again. These results are from a 12% ROI at 12s and 5ptbb/100hands for 50nl.


Using Tourney Manager and Hold'em Manager to sort my results by session I'm looking at my hourly playing SNGs over the last 3k games and playing cash over the last 40k hands.

Now for a session in SNGs my hourly fluctuates between +/- 5x my actual(and for this purpose, true) hourly.

For a session in cash my hourly fluctuates between +/- 20x my actual(and for this purpose, true) hourly.

[/ QUOTE ]

3k sngs and 40k hands probably isnt enough volume to have accurate results since lots of players of both games have breakeven streaks that long.

the 3k game breakeven is not real common but ive seen at least 2-3 of the best sngers on FT have them.

[suzzer99]

My point is that 1000 SNGs is going to get you a lot closer to your true winrate than 8 sngs. Which means more tables = less variance per set or per time period, assuming winrate doesn't change.

This is really basic statistics, and not in any kind of dispute.

[DevinLake]

It takes a sample of 1000s to determine what you win rate is (or more accurately, your finish distribution), in order to figure out what your variance is.

So, how large of an effect can adding a couple tables have over the course of an hour? How much closer to your actually variance will it be? I'd say it's negligible.

[braminc]

well devin, wouldnt 8 tabling bring you 8x closer to your true expected ROI than playing 1 table (over any given period of time)? for some reason that doesnt seem negligible.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
well devin, wouldnt 8 tabling bring you 8x closer to your true expected ROI than playing 1 table (over any given period of time)? for some reason that doesnt seem negligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that your "true expected ROI" while 8-tabling is the same as your "true expected ROI" while playing 1 table. I have never heard any successful multi-tabler claim this. Everyone I have seen discuss this says that their ROI goes down as they play more tables, but that, up to a point, their profit per hour goes up.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that your "true expected ROI" while 8-tabling is the same as your "true expected ROI" while playing 1 table. I have never heard any successful multi-tabler claim this. Everyone I have seen discuss this says that their ROI goes down as they play more tables, but that, up to a point, their profit per hour goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complex than that. If you one table you are going to get bored, and you'll be subject to more of an emotional response to bad beats and runs. I believe there is an equilibrium created between the number of tables you are comfortable with and max ROI. I don't believe this is linear either...

Sort of a made up example that applies to my comfort zone and ROI.

My ROI....

$109 1 table > $109 4 table
$6.50 1 table < $6.5 4 table

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well devin, wouldnt 8 tabling bring you 8x closer to your true expected ROI than playing 1 table (over any given period of time)? for some reason that doesnt seem negligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that your "true expected ROI" while 8-tabling is the same as your "true expected ROI" while playing 1 table. I have never heard any successful multi-tabler claim this. Everyone I have seen discuss this says that their ROI goes down as they play more tables, but that, up to a point, their profit per hour goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your ROI goes down at some point. We're just isolating variance here. Pure statistics. The more tables you can play at once the less your variance will be over a time period. Assuming your winrate could somehow stay the same.

[Tantalus747]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that 1000 SNGs is going to get you a lot closer to your true winrate than 8 sngs. Which means more tables = less variance per set or per time period, assuming winrate doesn't change.

This is really basic statistics, and not in any kind of dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

That works fine viewing those 1000 games as a set. So your variance per set will drop but per games it will always be the same provided standard play and opponents.

What I was trying to get across is that variance doesn't change, but the more money in play the greater $ amount SWINGS will be (not variance.)

Cash is higher variance. It's also higher edge; even with less money in play, there is greater profit potential for a good player (in effect higher ROI but there's no good way to measure that for cash.)

Because of the relatively lower ROI of SNGs, you're risking more money than a cash player to earn the same $ amount. The tradeoff is the lower variance of STT.

I think the people getting caught up in this need to set aside preconcieved notions for a second and actually look at the math involved, if they do I think this arguement will dissapear quickly.


p.s. I hope I'm not getting ignored because I usually prefer to lurk.