Future of sng's online?

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the amount of SNGs you have to play to win similar cash is just tremendous (on the order of 1000s of high-stakes SNGs per month).

[/ QUOTE ]

But you just made my point for me... look at how much more money you had to put into play for the same earn at SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh! what? Are you simply comparing buy-ins? How many SNGs do I have to play to win 10K? The amount of money that's pumped in is much higher than what I would put in cash games. To win 10K at 225s with say 3% ROI, one has to play close to 1500 SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The variance at higher limits is, as Suzzer put it succintly, soul-crushing. Variance in NL cash games is much much lower, trust me.

Learn to play cash. Profit!

[/ QUOTE ]

As a strong NL player, if you could be given an ROI rating it would be far higher than the best SNG player on the planet. Now imagine that ROI from your NL applied to SNGs. What kinda varience do you think an 60+% ROI SNG pro would have? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Impossible of course, but a useful thought experiement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. However strong you are at NL cash, there's only certain amount of winrate one can have. With a small winrate like 3% at 225s, one can easily be off that 3% with slightest bit of variance. Beating the rake itself becomes a tough task at some point. That's why SNGs suck.

[microbet]

Variance is the square of the standard deviation of WHAT?

That's the issue. Swings don't necessarily equal variance, but it seems like if we define our sample well then it seems to me they will be the same thing.

In terms of swing - how much money I win and lose in a session (for me about 600 hands or so) compared to my earn it's not even close so far - cash has been much less swingy.

[Tantalus747]

[ QUOTE ]
The amount of money that's pumped in is much higher than what I would put in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I don't understand why you're repeating it back?

[ QUOTE ]


[However strong you are at NL cash, there's only certain amount of winrate one can have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if you could translate that into a SNG like ROI. You measure NL in bb/100 not ROI. The 60% was just a number I threw out there. You'd have to take total profit/total wagered over a sick number of hands for something like what I'm talking about here.


[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]

With a small winrate like 3% at 225s, one can easily be off that 3% with slightest bit of variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yippie!! Another definition of variance! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Have you read all my posts on this thread or are you responding selectively? It seems my points are being missed when the issue really isn't that complicated.

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of money that's pumped in is much higher than what I would put in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I don't understand why you're repeating it back?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you mentioned the opposite. One has to put a lot of money IN cash games COMPARED to SNGs. If you agree, then that's fine. You mis-typed it or I mis-read.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[However strong you are at NL cash, there's only certain amount of winrate one can have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if you could translate that into a SNG like ROI. You measure NL in bb/100 not ROI. The 60% was just a number I threw out there. You'd have to take total profit/total wagered over a sick number of hands for something like what I'm talking about here.


[/ QUOTE ]

60% ROI in SNGs is impossible. The BB/100 cannot be compared to ROI in SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

With a small winrate like 3% at 225s, one can easily be off that 3% with slightest bit of variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yippie!! Another definition of variance! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Have you read all my posts on this thread or are you responding selectively? It seems my points are being missed when the issue really isn't that complicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I HAVE READ all the responses including yours. I understand the definition of variance and I don't need to repeat again here. There are countless threads including this one explaining what it means.

[BHokie1]

[ QUOTE ]
Variance is the square of the standard deviation of WHAT?



[/ QUOTE ]

The average of the square of the difference between each data point and the mean, or the mean squared deviation.

Does that help? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Tantalus747]

[ QUOTE ]
Variance is the square of the standard deviation of WHAT?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your earn. Sorry I took it for granted that was obv.

[ QUOTE ]


That's the issue. Swings don't necessarily equal variance, but it seems like if we define our sample well then it seems to me they will be the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This got me thinking. If what I said above wasn't understood my thoughts here certainly wouldn't be and this is kinda irrelevant for poker players so best to just ignore next paragraph.

They're not the same thing, they're even measured different. But what if you were to try to make them the same by looking at variance over the swing period? (I imagine working them to a perfect 1:1 correlation to get around our yardstick problem.) Well, I don't think that could work because then you'd be looking at variance within the swing period, not variance in over all earn which will by definition determine magnitude of swings.

[ QUOTE ]


In terms of swing - how much money I win and lose in a session (for me about 600 hands or so) compared to my earn it's not even close so far - cash has been much less swingy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt you are 100% correct in this statement.

[Tantalus747]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of money that's pumped in is much higher than what I would put in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I don't understand why you're repeating it back?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you mentioned the opposite. One has to put a lot of money IN cash games COMPARED to SNGs. If you agree, then that's fine. You mis-typed it or I mis-read.

[/ QUOTE ]

You edit your post to correct it and then say I misread it? That's seriously lame. And pitiful, I mean how important is it that you said it backward the first time? I guess you're too perfect to make a transposition. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[However strong you are at NL cash, there's only certain amount of winrate one can have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if you could translate that into a SNG like ROI. You measure NL in bb/100 not ROI. The 60% was just a number I threw out there. You'd have to take total profit/total wagered over a sick number of hands for something like what I'm talking about here.


[/ QUOTE ]

60% ROI in SNGs is impossible. The BB/100 cannot be compared to ROI in SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I said that already. I'm beginning to wonder what's going on here. It's just too wierd that you say you've read all this, disagree with me, but keep repeating what I've said.