Stars ROI's?

[Mike MacIntosh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's balla to go 13% ROI over 1.5k 16s, then 750 27s with 0% ROI. True skillz.

2 more months of 17 cent poker til I get a nice LCD TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine if you play for those FPP's. Ill buy my LCD TV with my profits...lol...

[JSH06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's balla to go 13% ROI over 1.5k 16s, then 750 27s with 0% ROI. True skillz.

2 more months of 17 cent poker til I get a nice LCD TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get used to it. If you play long enough you will run into sh!t like this. I just went break even over about 1,000 SNGs last month because I continually got f'd in the @ss. Of course I'm having my best month ever this month. It's a crazy game we play.

[LordMushroom2]

[ QUOTE ]
I just went break even over about 1,000 SNGs last month because I continually got f'd in the @ss.

[/ QUOTE ]

That will teach you never to mix business with pleasure.

[ALReturnsLOL]

30% for the 6.50s is ubsurd imo.

[wuwut666]

To me ROI's dont mean much. I think you should look at $/hr.
But to awnser your question it all depends on the number of tables you play.

4-tabling the 60s I would guess an ROI around 10% is very good but then again 12-tabling and getting a 4% ROI is more profitable [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (and im not even looking at the FPPs)

[SuitedSixes]

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but there is a HUGE difference in attainable ROI between 10-Man (Party) and 9-Man (Stars) SNGs.

Since being booted by Party my ROI is 4.1% despite finishing 1st 16% of the time with a 38.6% ITM. The same finish distribution in a 10-Man SNG would create an ROI of 15.7%. The argument will be that since there are only 9 players it is easier to make it ITM. Solid players don't finish 10th enough for this to outweigh the lost EV$ donated by the 10th player.

In 10-Man SNGs, I was finishing 9th or worse 8.3% of the time. In the 9-Man I am finishing 9th 3.1% of the time, yet my ROI is significantly lower.

Couple that with the loss of rakeback and it is no wonder why so many players are struggling.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but there is a HUGE difference in attainable ROI between 10-Man (Party) and 9-Man (Stars) SNGs.

Since being booted by Party my ROI is 4.1% despite finishing 1st 16% of the time with a 38.6% ITM. The same finish distribution in a 10-Man SNG would create an ROI of 15.7%. The argument will be that since there are only 9 players it is easier to make it ITM. Solid players don't finish 10th enough for this to outweigh the lost EV$ donated by the 10th player.

In 10-Man SNGs, I was finishing 9th or worse 8.3% of the time. In the 9-Man I am finishing 9th 3.1% of the time, yet my ROI is significantly lower.

Couple that with the loss of rakeback and it is no wonder why so many players are struggling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be nice to see a real number cruncher help determine this. I would be interested to understand what your hypothesis is re: "a HUGE difference in attainable ROI between 10-Man (Party) and 9-Man (Stars) SNGs." I assume your main point is the 10-vs-9 argument. (If your core point is instead the Party vs. Stars argument, then I'm not addressing this.)

Given my style of playing very tight on early levels, I rarely take the chips (initially) of that first player or two to exit the game. So in a 10-man game, I'm now 'competing' with 1500 _MORE_ chips out there in my opponents' stacks.

So on this particular point, I see 9 players as better for me, but I'm not sure this is particularly significant -- only perhaps a reflection that my style has been unconsciously tailored for this.

If your style is more suited to benefitting from more players, maybe try multi-table tourneys? Does Stars offer 2 and 3 table ones?

[DaN_05]

[ QUOTE ]
30% for the 6.50s is ubsurd imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, I think 25%-20% is very good and achievable though.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but there is a HUGE difference in attainable ROI between 10-Man (Party) and 9-Man (Stars) SNGs.

Since being booted by Party my ROI is 4.1% despite finishing 1st 16% of the time with a 38.6% ITM. The same finish distribution in a 10-Man SNG would create an ROI of 15.7%. The argument will be that since there are only 9 players it is easier to make it ITM. Solid players don't finish 10th enough for this to outweigh the lost EV$ donated by the 10th player.

In 10-Man SNGs, I was finishing 9th or worse 8.3% of the time. In the 9-Man I am finishing 9th 3.1% of the time, yet my ROI is significantly lower.

Couple that with the loss of rakeback and it is no wonder why so many players are struggling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be nice to see a real number cruncher help determine this. I would be interested to understand what your hypothesis is re: "a HUGE difference in attainable ROI between 10-Man (Party) and 9-Man (Stars) SNGs." I assume your main point is the 10-vs-9 argument. (If your core point is instead the Party vs. Stars argument, then I'm not addressing this.)

Given my style of playing very tight on early levels, I rarely take the chips (initially) of that first player or two to exit the game. So in a 10-man game, I'm now 'competing' with 1500 _MORE_ chips out there in my opponents' stacks.

So on this particular point, I see 9 players as better for me, but I'm not sure this is particularly significant -- only perhaps a reflection that my style has been unconsciously tailored for this.

If your style is more suited to benefitting from more players, maybe try multi-table tourneys? Does Stars offer 2 and 3 table ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

My hypothesis is purely from the math of ROI and finish distribution. If the overall prize pool is worth 10% less in a 9-Man than in a 10-Man, etc. I don't see how the maximum possible attainable ROI couldn't be effected as a result.

"Upgrading" from single table to two or three would effect the hourly earn rate which most multi-tablers are concerned with.

[SlackerMcFly]

[ QUOTE ]
Given my style of playing very tight on early levels, I rarely take the chips (initially) of that first player or two to exit the game. So in a 10-man game, I'm now 'competing' with 1500 _MORE_ chips out there in my opponents' stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]
The difference between you specifically taking ALL of the chips of a player early and those chips being distributed somewhat equally is the difference IMHO.

1500 spread about 9 players is better than 8 (the remaining players at Stars after the 1st bust).

The difference is when a single player accumulates the 8th and/or 7th place chips. Now you are 6 handed (or 7) with a monster to deal with. With 8 or 9 players left (old Party games), the monster had less of an edge in the mid-game.

Moral: There is generally a larger disparity in stacks heading into ITM play with 9 player tables than with 10. Therefore, the chances are greater for more 2nds and 3rds than 1sts under the old structure.

Add the fact that the prize pool is 10% smaller and we have lower ROI's across the board with equal ITM percentages and place distribution.

I had (variance) a day this week where my ITM was 58% (only 19 tourneys). Can you guess my ROI?

Slacka