ROI - What is a good target for small live SNG's?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Steven Covey makes this suggestion: Seek to understand before you are unerstood. Everyone wanted to make THEIR point rather than try to understand me or my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you're guilty of it. How could we possibly answer the question of what a "good target" would be?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
fishyak has a 100% valid question.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the 100% valid response is, it's unanswerable. But he's unaccepting of it.

[ QUOTE ]
If this was a baseball forum and someone said "I have a .300 batting average after 250 ABs in the Major Leagues what BA should I strive for".

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you like me to point out the differences between that scenario and this one, or can you figure it out?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to read through posts again. I don't think anyone (seriously) said that 56% (or whatever) was anywhere close to bad. The key number in the OP isn't the ROI, it's the sample size. To try and make any sense out of win rate after 11 tournaments is beyond retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't try to make sense of win rate after 11 tournaments (not as far as you know.) He asked 2 questions:
1) what should be a target ROI?
2) how to calculate ROI?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't try to make sense of win rate after 11 tournaments (not as far as you know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Although to be fair, he did imply it with his later post about golf.

[DevinLake]

eurythmech, please don't post in this thread again.

[cakewalk]

in before lock

[Webster]

[ QUOTE ]
once you've played enough to be significant, you are no longer the player you were once you started.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats so so true!!!

That is why I only keep a 50 SNG running ROI average. Then I keep the stats for each bundled 50. I figure each 50 is ONE game so I keep trying to do better then the last game.

I suppose 50 is WAY too short but . . . . I've always been fond of the number 50.

How's that for OT!