P5's top donk-n-go player is going pro (modnote: Awesome hand inside)

[apefish]

I want to assert and refute stuff also.
No fair.

[braminc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The stats you can see on Sharkscope have me at appx 30% over appx 1k SNGs at appx a $14 avg, so it shouldn't be a giant leap to see that 39% over 11,000 isn't that farfetched

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHHAHA

YOU UNDERSTAND SAMPLE SIZE AND VARIANCE RLY WELL SWEETHEART

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I do. My sample size of 1000 at 30% ROI is accurate to approximately +/- 5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheNoodleMan/any other STTF hero please set this silly girl straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to easbay's post on the subject...

[ QUOTE ]
After 1000 games, you have a 2/3 chance of being within +/-5% of your true ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a math wiz, but I'd bet the chances of true ROI being far away from +/- 5% here are pretty low, with a sharp drop-off the further away from 5% you get. All in all, jennifear's claim about approximation seems fine to me, since she's very unlikely to be very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude,

you do realize that 1k breakeven stretches are not at all uncommon for people with even 15-20% ROI, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

youre way way off here. 1k breakeven stretches are uncommon for a 6% roi. they happen, but not frequently.
15-20rois will almost never have 500gm breakevens.

[0evg0]

i was at ~17% over my first ~2500 $16s and went 800 breakeven

i know pudge has said he's gone 1k breakeven at least once, maybe multiple times

90% sure spacegravy as well

maybe i'm off, because i dont know [censored] about dng's anymore, but that's my memory

[skillgambler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your assertion that I don't understand ICM is easily refuted by my numbers. I teach that part of the game very well. Perhaps you should look me up to improve your results.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hahaha, owned!

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jimmy James]

He's correct. I'm a 20% ROI player (8 tabling), and in March or April I went on a 750 game break even streak. I'll post up my last 1k games, and the 1k games for my break even streak. Very easy to run bad over 500+ games, even being a top SNG player at your particular level.

[apefish]

Okay, I refute evg's mom.

Unless she asserts an Eiffel Tower.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a math wiz, but I'd bet the chances of true ROI being far away from +/- 5% here are pretty low, with a sharp drop-off the further away from 5% you get. All in all, jennifear's claim about approximation seems fine to me, since she's very unlikely to be very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude,

you do realize that 1k breakeven stretches are not at all uncommon for people with even 15-20% ROI, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm looking at it from a math perspective - if eastbay's quoted numbers are correct, I would say these stretches are indeed uncommon. I haven't played enough SNGs myself to speak from experience - not that that is too relevant obviously.

Anyway, lol math in BBV.

[iggy]

[ QUOTE ]
gigabet claimed that 75% ROI is likely to be possible pre-UIGIEA at Party $11s with single tabling, excellent table selection etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

how did that work out for him???

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
how did that work out for him???

[/ QUOTE ]

*UIGEA came along

*It's not financially worthwhile for him to do it

*The time required to develop a statistically significant sample size is phenomonal.


It's sorta like "The Stig" on Top Gear and his feedback on how to improve cars. Sure, every now and then Koeniggsegg will remodel their car to respond to his feedback, but at the same time, these sorts of rediculously <u>excellent</u> experts are typically excellent because they have good judgement.

Of course, it is theoretical, but at the same time, it is not worthwhile dismissing out of hand.

[iggy]

no.

he was just lying when he made that absurd claim