Response to Gigabet

[Aleo]

This is a post by Gigabet in the now locked take 1 official thread. I had composed a response, and I'm posting it here.

[ QUOTE ]
You are so far out of line, it is ridiculous. First off, regardless of how people take me, I am humble. Secondly, I have played over 80,000 STTs.

I have had at least 2 runs of 1000 games at the 215 level where my ROI was over 60%.

I have had at least one run of 600 at the 1k level where my roi was at 59%. I have been playing these since they started, every day, sometimes 100s per day, since they started.

When you hear people talk about the long run, they are talking about my sample size. When you are watching me play, you are seeing the long run.

I don't know the math behind the numbers, and how that part of it even works. But I do know that if the math allows a 75% roi at the $11 STT level, then 75% is attainable. By me, the guy who just scored -2.73% after playing 100.

You believe you are mocking me, but you are mocking yourself. When I say something, I mean it, and I never say something unless I feel I have the means to back it up.


[/ QUOTE ]

...

[ QUOTE ]
I do know that if the math allows a 75% roi at the $11 STT level, then 75% is attainable. By me, the guy who just scored -2.73% after playing 100.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I'll buy that. IF a 75% ROI is possible, then it is attainable by you. Trouble is, nobody is questioning that. They are questioning the suggestion that it is possible at all, and the fact that YOU just managed a negative ROI over a 100 game sample is a good indication that it isn't.

I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say in your post and I certainly do not think it is the POTD, however cool and manly it sounded.

We all know how good you are, or think we do anyways. You don't need to defend your ability or sample size with us. However... It's our very acceptance of your superiority in these matters that makes the 75% ROI suggestion so untenable.

I know you didn't say that you expected a 75% ROI, but I guess we all would have imagined that if ANYONE could do it, It'd be you. You didn't, and actually scored a negative 100 SNG streak. This tells us something. You might have run bad, but probably not that bad. A 75% ROI player will run negative once in 10,000 samples that size. In fact, a 40% ROI player will not do it so often either for us to just assume that this was that one time.

There is a mathematical basis to what I am saying. Bayes theorem instructs us to skew our estimate of your prowess even after seeing that small a sample. If our initial hypothesis was 75%, it is now a lot less. If our inital hypothesis was 35% (as I would have guessed), we still need to now accept a lower estimate.

I feel I should say something again - I am not trying to diminish or take away from your abilities. This is not an ego contest to me.

It does, however, lend a lot of support to a hypothesis of my own. The average $11 SNG expert can probably outperform a high stakes player on when the two are playing on the $11 player's own turf.

And none of these guys are anywhere near a 75% ROI.

Regards
Brad S

[pineapple888]

Well said. About time somebody started making some sense on this issue.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
You are so far out of line, it is ridiculous. First off, regardless of how people take me, I am humble. Secondly, I have played over 80,000 STTs.

I have had at least 2 runs of 1000 games at the 215 level where my ROI was over 60%.

I have had at least one run of 600 at the 1k level where my roi was at 59%. I have been playing these since they started, every day, sometimes 100s per day, since they started.

When you hear people talk about the long run, they are talking about my sample size. When you are watching me play, you are seeing the long run.

I don't know the math behind the numbers, and how that part of it even works. But I do know that if the math allows a 75% roi at the $11 STT level, then 75% is attainable. By me, the guy who just scored -2.73% after playing 100.

You believe you are mocking me, but you are mocking yourself. When I say something, I mean it, and I never say something unless I feel I have the means to back it up.


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok Im done with this, I have to speak my mind. Gigabet, about the above stats, I simply don't believe you. You have had 2 runs of 1000 tournaments with a 60%+ ROI at the $215s? Do you know the odds of having a run of 1000 tournaments with a 60% ROI or more assuming your true ROI is 21%?

The answer is close to zero. Its under .000000001%. Yet you claim to have done it twice. Anyone with ROI Simulator can just run this and see how completely impossible it is.

If your true ROI at the $215s is FREAKING 30%, do you know what the chances of having a run of 1000 tournaments with an ROI of 60% or more? Again its practically ZERO!! I have run 3 million simulations and it has happened to a 30% ROIer exactly zero times, and trust me, your ROI isnt 30% at the
$215s! I'm sure someone could run a simulation and have it happen once or twice out of a million to a mystical 30% ROIer, but based on everything that anyone should know about math, they simply have to believe you are lying or fudging your numbers.

Before someone flames me for wondering why would someone lie about such a thing just please run some simulations and see just how impossible it is to do it even once WITH a 30% ROI! If you guys want to believe that Gigabet's ROI is above 30% and that he has acheived a 1 in a 2 million feat twice in his lifetime, then be my guest. If you run something like this assuming a true ROI of 20% then the odds of it occuring seem to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 100 million or more.

Anyway that's all. You are all free to believe what you want, but when I hear numbers being posted that are close to and probably worse than 1 in a billion liklihood of being legitimate, I'm not going to just sit by and believe them, especially with the firthand knowledge I have of the $215s.

Yes why would Gigabet lie about something like this? I have no idea, and I know that this post will not make me friends, but I do know that it's important for people to not believe some of the random impossible numbers that are flounted around on this website, just because someone respectable says they happened.


Again, anyone who wants to dispute me, give Giga an ROI of 20% (which Im quite sure is higher than his real $215 ROI). Now run simulations all day, millions of them. Tell me the first time you get an ROI registering above 60%.

[pineapple888]

Wow, curtains, you read that whole thing? I stopped after "I am humble."

[Newt_Buggs]

nice posts Aleo and Curtains

[ QUOTE ]
It does, however, lend a lot of support to a hypothesis of my own. The average $11 SNG expert can probably outperform a high stakes player on when the two are playing on the $11 player's own turf.

[/ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree with this though. Any $11 expert player is still at the $11s because he is having trouble mastering some of the fundamentals of SNGs. There's no way such a player could match a top high stakes player in any game at any limit. The best players are good because they understand the game very well and are able to adapt to the wide variety of opponents that they face. Anyone smart enough to beat high stakes is also smart enough to figure out how to adjust to donks.

[suzzer99]

Everyone play nice. I don't want this thread to get locked or taken away before we here GB's response. This is getting really really juicy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way such a player could match a top high stakes player in any game at any limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me odds.

Lori

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone smart enough to beat high stakes is also smart enough to figure out how to adjust to donks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we may have just seen some evidence to the contrary.

[McShove]

curtains, great post, and thanks for speaking up as an expert on the other side of this debate.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone play nice. I don't want this thread to get locked or taken away before we here GB's response. This is getting really really juicy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen, if I ever claim to have a 60% ROI over 1000 $215s, not once, but TWICE!, I would expect to be flamed, and be told that I was lying moron. I don't post such things, I post things that actually have happened in reality.