|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Peeps are... | |||
| delicious. |
   
|
15 | 35.71% |
| disgusting. |
  
|
27 | 64.29% |
| Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
11-21-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] sorry to be a geek but when you say exponential i'm sure you mean logarithmic - that's what get's my vote i've got a maths degree (1st class hons - oxford uni), i win big tournaments, i'm sure ROI isn't bounded i do agree that life is too short for this to ever matter, either intellectually or practically [/ QUOTE ] If you don't think it's bounded (I'm a maths major too) then show me someone w/ a significant # of tourneys played w/ an ROI over 400%... 300%... 250%... maybe, but it'll be rare. If it wasn't bounded there would be people w/ that kind of ROI. It's just not possible w/ variance, luck, & bad plays. [/ QUOTE ] Strassa2, FTW 
|
|
#12
11-21-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] sorry to be a geek but when you say exponential i'm sure you mean logarithmic - that's what get's my vote i've got a maths degree (1st class hons - oxford uni), i win big tournaments, i'm sure ROI isn't bounded i do agree that life is too short for this to ever matter, either intellectually or practically [/ QUOTE ] If you don't think it's bounded (I'm a maths major too) then show me someone w/ a significant # of tourneys played w/ an ROI over 400%... 300%... 250%... maybe, but it'll be rare. If it wasn't bounded there would be people w/ that kind of ROI. It's just not possible w/ variance, luck, & bad plays. [/ QUOTE ] you sound like a scientist - not a mathematician with the practical limits on tournament size (no tournament will ever have more than 6 billion entrants) and life expectancy (no-one lives long enough for their results to be significant) it is possible to set an upper bound. In theory, no. Honest If you wanna see a high ROI (although a small sample) check out aplunk on party poker - but now i'm just bragging - it's nothing to do with what i'm saying
|
|
#13
11-21-2006, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] sorry to be a geek but when you say exponential i'm sure you mean logarithmic - that's what get's my vote i've got a maths degree (1st class hons - oxford uni), i win big tournaments, i'm sure ROI isn't bounded i do agree that life is too short for this to ever matter, either intellectually or practically [/ QUOTE ] If you don't think it's bounded (I'm a maths major too) then show me someone w/ a significant # of tourneys played w/ an ROI over 400%... 300%... 250%... maybe, but it'll be rare. If it wasn't bounded there would be people w/ that kind of ROI. It's just not possible w/ variance, luck, & bad plays. [/ QUOTE ] Disclaimer: I don't have a math degree, so I could be very wrong... There can be people with ROIs of up to a figure as absurd as 500%, yet the system can still be bounded. In fact, it necessarily has to be. There is no possible way that there is no upper bound on ROI. Let's imagine that we live in some fantasy land where I win every single tournament I enter, and I only play in 1,000 person tourneys for a $1,000 buyin with no rake. Lets assume I win every single time, and 1st pays out 25%. So every tourney, I gross $250,000, and my ROI is %25,000. Can my ROI go higher than this? Is this not my upper bound? The reality is is that there is likely a bound somewhere lower than this, but regardless, there has to be an upper bound (much like there has to be a lower bound of -100%).
|
|
#14
11-21-2006, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
you sound like a scientist - not a mathematician with the practical limits on tournament size (no tournament will ever have more than 6 billion entrants) and life expectancy (no-one lives long enough for their results to be significant) it is possible to set an upper bound. In theory, no. Honest If you wanna see a high ROI (although a small sample) check out aplunk on party poker - but now i'm just bragging - it's nothing to do with what i'm saying [/ QUOTE ] math/cs @ Macalester, grad w/ honors, but seriously I've had 500% ROI for a couple of months, but then I lost for a couple of months. It's variance, and sometimes its w/ you and sometimes its against you. There has to be an upper bound because no one has an infinite ROI, in fact, due to the nature of ROI there has to be a cap. I mean if we're putting up 1k to win 100k in a big tournament (say 500 players) we have a 9900% ROI and if we have a 20/180 for a max of 4900% ROI, but over time how often are we going to win the 20/180 as compared to the 1k/500? I say way less often which would drop the ROI to similar #'s, esp w/ a lot of tournaments over time.
|
|
#15
11-21-2006, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] sorry to be a geek but when you say exponential i'm sure you mean logarithmic - that's what get's my vote i've got a maths degree (1st class hons - oxford uni), i win big tournaments, i'm sure ROI isn't bounded i do agree that life is too short for this to ever matter, either intellectually or practically [/ QUOTE ] If you don't think it's bounded (I'm a maths major too) then show me someone w/ a significant # of tourneys played w/ an ROI over 400%... 300%... 250%... maybe, but it'll be rare. If it wasn't bounded there would be people w/ that kind of ROI. It's just not possible w/ variance, luck, & bad plays. [/ QUOTE ] Disclaimer: I don't have a math degree, so I could be very wrong... There can be people with ROIs of up to a figure as absurd as 500%, yet the system can still be bounded. In fact, it necessarily has to be. There is no possible way that there is no upper bound on ROI. Let's imagine that we live in some fantasy land where I win every single tournament I enter, and I only play in 1,000 person tourneys for a $1,000 buyin with no rake. Lets assume I win every single time, and 1st pays out 25%. So every tourney, I gross $250,000, and my ROI is %25,000. Can my ROI go higher than this? Is this not my upper bound? The reality is is that there is likely a bound somewhere lower than this, but regardless, there has to be an upper bound (much like there has to be a lower bound of -100%). [/ QUOTE ] This is obviously true, we can never have an infinite ROI. My argument is that given enough tournaments a true max ROI would be bounded much lower than the theoretical max ROI and would cap over the long run somewhere between 250% & 400-500%.
|
|
#16
11-21-2006, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
i must say i'm getting quite fed up with the way people are using practical considerations to discuss a mathematical relationship
if you have an infinite tournament and you are above avg in the field, you have an infinite ROI - end of. However - you're probably better off playing in tournaments that don't last that long - $$/hr is what we should focus on.
|
|
#17
11-21-2006, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] sorry to be a geek but when you say exponential i'm sure you mean logarithmic - that's what get's my vote i've got a maths degree (1st class hons - oxford uni), i win big tournaments, i'm sure ROI isn't bounded i do agree that life is too short for this to ever matter, either intellectually or practically [/ QUOTE ] If you don't think it's bounded (I'm a maths major too) then show me someone w/ a significant # of tourneys played w/ an ROI over 400%... 300%... 250%... maybe, but it'll be rare. If it wasn't bounded there would be people w/ that kind of ROI. It's just not possible w/ variance, luck, & bad plays. [/ QUOTE ] Disclaimer: I don't have a math degree, so I could be very wrong... There can be people with ROIs of up to a figure as absurd as 500%, yet the system can still be bounded. In fact, it necessarily has to be. There is no possible way that there is no upper bound on ROI. Let's imagine that we live in some fantasy land where I win every single tournament I enter, and I only play in 1,000 person tourneys for a $1,000 buyin with no rake. Lets assume I win every single time, and 1st pays out 25%. So every tourney, I gross $250,000, and my ROI is %25,000. Can my ROI go higher than this? Is this not my upper bound? The reality is is that there is likely a bound somewhere lower than this, but regardless, there has to be an upper bound (much like there has to be a lower bound of -100%). [/ QUOTE ] This is obviously true, we can never have an infinite ROI. My argument is that given enough tournaments a true max ROI would be bounded much lower than the theoretical max ROI and would cap over the long run somewhere between 250% & 400-500%. [/ QUOTE ] This makes sense, I'd even venture to say that a max bound of a bit over 500% is feasible (though quite unlikely). This is more likely for those players who concentrate on higher buyin live tourneys. The distribution of people along this asymptotic scale would look much like a bell curve, with the mean being equal to something around -15% - -20% (or slightly more than rake), and people having extremely high ROIs being as rare as those with abysmal ROIs.
|
|
#18
11-21-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
if you have an infinite tournament and you are above avg in the field, you have an infinite ROI - end of. However - you're probably better off playing in tournaments that don't last that long - $$/hr is what we should focus on. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? This makes no sense at all.
|
|
#19
11-21-2006, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if you have an infinite tournament and you are above avg in the field, you have an infinite ROI - end of. However - you're probably better off playing in tournaments that don't last that long - $$/hr is what we should focus on. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? This makes no sense at all. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it does. He's saying that to have an infinite ROI you'd have to have an infinite number of players and it would never finish. Since this isn't possible then there has to be a limit on obtainable ROI.
|
|
#20
11-21-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ROI vs Number of Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] if you have an infinite tournament and you are above avg in the field, you have an infinite ROI - end of. However - you're probably better off playing in tournaments that don't last that long - $$/hr is what we should focus on. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? This makes no sense at all. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it does. He's saying that to have an infinite ROI you'd have to have an infinite number of players and it would never finish. Since this isn't possible then there has to be a limit on obtainable ROI. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously, why post that. We can't have an infinite ROI because there is a limit to a)how much we spend and b) how much we gain. My point is that the long term ROI limit is not the theoretical max limit ROI (ie it's impossible to take first in every tournament you're in, even if we get in good every single time).
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
