Question For Sit n Go Pros

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
David, fwiw, i dont think anyone in the world right now is getting that sort of ridiculously awesome distribution in the 100+ buyin sngs. 40% itm is just incredibly sick, even with that high a % of 3rds. i wouldnt be surprised to see something like 12/11/13 type distribution, but that is still pretty solid. the bigger buyin sngs are a TON tougher than they used to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true, except that I can play on Party which is a complete joke.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that every single one of you come in third more often than first or any other place. True or not? In nine handed sit n gos with 50 30 20 splits. I'd guess the typical pro comes in first about 11%, second about 13% and third about 16%. Is that about right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most pros finish first more than any other place. This is because the right strategy on the bubble is often an aggressive one rather than one in which you sit back and wait to make the money.

If you think about it, if you could trade two third places for just one first place, you'd be making a huge profit by doing so. It doesn't matter if you miss out on a bunch of ITMs if you can get some more firsts under your belt.

[ChrisV]

FWIW, here's some data of mine. This is from Party before the UIGEA (all $109s) when I was running well:

Tournaments 1,469
Firsts 13.07%
Seconds 11.30%
Thirds 12.46%
ROI 13.91%
ITM 36.83%

As you can see, my ITM is not particularly high. The reason my ROI is very good (for this level) is that my ITM finishes are slanted towards first.

This is from Party post-UIGEA, from a mixture of limits (mostly $55 and $109), when I was running pretty poorly:

Tournaments 962
Firsts 11.23%
Seconds 12.68%
Thirds 10.50%
ROI 7.14%
ITM 34.41%

Combining the two datasets:

Tournaments 2,431
Firsts 12.34%
Seconds 11.84%
Thirds 11.68%

Probably should be weighted a bit more towards first. If I were still playing SNGs, I'd get a bit more aggressive on the bubble.

[David Sklansky]

On further contemplation I realize that pros will finish first about as often as third but not really for the reason you gave. Rather it is because they would finish first a LOT more than third if there was only one winner. So the strategies that pros use to sacrifice first place chances for third place chances, while moving up the latter and reducing the former, don't affect results to the point where third becomes the clearly most likely result.

[VORP]

[ QUOTE ]
On further contemplation I realize that pros will finish first about as often as third but not really for the reason you gave. Rather it is because they would finish first a LOT more than third if there was only one winner. So the strategies that pros use to sacrifice first place chances for third place chances, while moving up the latter and reducing the former, don't affect results to the point where third becomes the clearly most likely result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, standard wisdom is that a good player will have about equal first and third places, with fewer seconds. Newt (whose stats I linked above) has said that he plays far more aggresivly than just about anyone on the bubble which is why he has more fourths than seconds or thirds. FWIW he was easily one of the half dozen or so most succesful sngers during the party heyday which I think makes his distribution pretty meaningful.

[MasterLJ]

Intuitively I would think that 2nd would be the least common, mostly because winning SnG players are probably many levels greater at HU play than the average competition.

[Trail_Boss_Mitch]

[ QUOTE ]
On further contemplation I realize that pros will finish first about as often as third but not really for the reason you gave. Rather it is because they would finish first a LOT more than third if there was only one winner. So the strategies that pros use to sacrifice first place chances for third place chances, while moving up the latter and reducing the former, don't affect results to the point where third becomes the clearly most likely result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh? Could you speak English?