OT: Does your arrogance hurt your results?

[suzzer99]

It's not essential if a) you're one of the better SNG players in the world, b) you have a huge BR to stomach the swings, and c) you're willing to play essentially for rakeback. For the rest of us it's pretty important. (I'm talking $114s/$225s+)

If newt and curtains didn't think the $114s were worth it (before they switched to cash), I figure it's pretty "arrogant" of me to think I could sit on them all day and night.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you just compare bigjoe (one of the biggest winners on sharkscope) to elky and rainkhan (two massive losers on sharkscope)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Elky and Rainkhan were both doing very well (according to sharkscope), then finally had to hang em up when the games got tougher and variance caught up to them. Is it inconceivable that this could happen to BigJoe? His recent numbers aren't looking too good. Is he better than those guys? Yes, at least I definitely think so.

Here's my reply to DDBeast on why BigJoe isn't doing as great as everyone thinks:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...ue#Post10241783

Do you agree with that logic, or am I off base there?

-BK

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several problems with your logic.

First, bigjoes stars play is almost entirely post party. That means that in the 6 months or so since the UIGEA, hes up a bunch.

Elky and rhainkhan were both playing primarily at stars before the legislation. As a result, they have a bunch of much softer games in their sharkscope db than bigjoe does.

Rhainkhan built his roll playing much smaller games and doesn't appear to have been very successful when he moved up to bigger games. This isn't a situation where its about poor game selection, he simply moved up to a level that he couldn't beat and got crushed. Its no different that if and other low to mid stakes grinder took a shot at the big games. No game selection he could have used would have made up for that fact. In theory I could beat the big game at the bellagio if I game selected and sat against 5 fish. In reality it is never going to happen that way.

Elky is down a ton playing HU SNGs. I'm not a sharkscope subscriber so I don't have an exact breakdown but its pretty clear that hes been killed at big buyin HU SNGs. Those aren't even remotely relevant to a discussion of his game selection at 9 player sngs.

Joey is going to clear what 400k+ this year in sngs considering fpps and SNE? Do you really think hes going to clear more than that by playing fewer games and lower stakes and using game selection? Yeah, hes going to have some nasty swings in the process but that doesn't mean he is doing anything less than making a killing.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Elky is down a ton playing HU SNGs. I'm not a sharkscope subscriber so I don't have an exact breakdown but its pretty clear that hes been killed at big buyin HU SNGs. Those aren't even remotely relevant to a discussion of his game selection at 9 player sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elky got crushed everywhere. Both HU and 9-men. Since his ROI is still marginally positive, I'd assume he isn't that bad but certainly far from being a great player.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that you should just wait for soft tables ONLY works if you also convince many of the other winners to do exact same thing. That's just not going to happen. Also, waiting for enough pure fish to make games go with "we'll only sit 3 pros to a table" would mean you get to play approximately never, especially if there's some form of queue for pros.


[/ QUOTE ]

It also means that when the games would run, they'd be softer, so everyone has their own individual incentive to break whatever "rules" have been established (which are completely unestablishable, b/c there's always new people moving up, etc.). It's just another prisoner's dilemna, or common square area problem (or whatever the f- that was called). Wow, putting that econ. degree to good (and well-articulated) use.

It's usually a little more self-regulating than on Stars right now, b/c when the games get totally shatty some people leave and go play cash or whatever. But, because of SNE, more people are sticking around b/c SNGs are a good way to get VPPs, and breakeven actually makes a good (albeit tortuous) earn. Damn you Stars - and thank you at the same time...

[BillytheKidd]

I have definately found that my ROI is much better when I avoid the 12 tabling 25% ROI SNG monsters. However, I only play 6.50's and 16's so it is much easier for me to wait 5 minutes as they these guys load up every game, and then when I see they are finished I start getting mine going. I have been selectively taking shots at the $50+ when I can find a really juicy table (for some reason they are easier to find at $50+ than at $27), but it takes a lot of work. I can see how those much better than me find it more +ev to just load up their games and beat the players than try to find easy games.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
I play on PP but it's the same situation - I refuse to sit at a table with more than 2 good regulars...and I always make sure they're to my left (for sngs). I usually just open a ton of tables at once (I play 8-9) and snipe seats at the last minute next to the tightest guys. Sometimes I'll sit down and 5 more regulars will jump in and I just get out of the tourny; it can be kind of frustrating but I can be patient...they have to fill up eventually :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, when I left sngs in November, there was maybe 2 good regulars at the 109s. I didn't need to table select.

[PokahGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I play on PP but it's the same situation - I refuse to sit at a table with more than 2 good regulars...and I always make sure they're to my left (for sngs). I usually just open a ton of tables at once (I play 8-9) and snipe seats at the last minute next to the tightest guys. Sometimes I'll sit down and 5 more regulars will jump in and I just get out of the tourny; it can be kind of frustrating but I can be patient...they have to fill up eventually :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, when I left sngs in November, there was maybe 2 good regulars at the 109s. I didn't need to table select.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play the 33s [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[citanul]

gramps,

Tragedy of the Commons.

Interestingly there's a thread in the El Diablo forum right now about this exact topic.

[bigj0e03]

I will say a few things on this topic.

A)The games are very hard

B) I have actually had to review my game and clean it up even more in the last couple weeks because you just can't leak at the big games anymore

C) There are like 3-5 players at every game I play now who I really really wish weren't playing in the same game as me. This would have been impossible a year ago and unheard of even 4 months ago. People are just better than they used to be, and the very good players, I'll use river prayer for example (who came back from 100 chips 4 way in a tournament today by wining 9, not exaggerating, all ins in a row to win) have made their game arguably as good as mine, not sure of this but a they are closer for sure. 3 months ago I would not have said this. Meaning that if we were both just playing one table I wouldn't expect him to do anything that I could say for sure was "wrong".

4)One thing that still separates the people at the top, and I would say there are a few tiers, and I'm not going to break them down because I really don't want to start a huge [censored] and I don't want to piss anyone off. But the thing that separates is that I can play 8-14 of the biggest buy in games continuous for 10 hours straight every day if I wanted and still be inarguably in the very top tier of players, and I would argue I still play the best (possibly tied with Gramps), and I don't think any of the other guys can do that. Basically what this means that if I want to really utilize my "edge" in the game the way it is, I have to just out-volume all of them, and thats the way I can make more money. So yea my sharkscope stats wont be stellar, nobody's will because the roi's have shrunk, but bc of the huge "rakebackish" stuff I can still make a bunch...just not as prettily as before.

5)BumpKing, You said in a previous thread that you've seen me make alot of mistakes, could you post a few examples please?

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not essential if a) you're one of the better SNG players in the world, b) you have a huge BR to stomach the swings, and c) you're willing to play essentially for rakeback. For the rest of us it's pretty important. (I'm talking $114s/$225s+)




If newt and curtains didn't think the $114s were worth it (before they switched to cash), I figure it's pretty "arrogant" of me to think I could sit on them all day and night.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I definitely used table selection at the end of my SnG career. It was clear the games were getting very difficult so I wasn't going to make things tougher on myself by sitting at a SNG where the first 3 signed up were fieryjustice, zfanatic and Gramps for example. I am also not a candidate to make supernova elite, so these considerations were meaningless to me.

If you don't like variance it's very important to avoid good players as much as possible, even if it means stepping down a level. Sometimes your win rate even goes UP by doing this.