Why would a player be better at MTT than STT?

[brad2002tj]

I've been playing poker recreationally for about 2 1/2 years now and became a winning player (I think) at low limits this year. The following stats are lifetime and include all of my learning curve.

STT Stats:

Pokerstars, 100 stt -$100
Full Filt, 400 stt + $300

MTT Stats:

Absolute, 89 MTT + $600

Does it appear from these stats that I'm a better MTT player than STT? If so, why would this be?

[BrandiFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it appear from these stats that I'm a better MTT player than STT? If so, why would this be?

[/ QUOTE ]No, but STTs are very different from MTTs
Edit: if you don't understand this, you should stop playing stts and read up on em.

[pokerg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it appear from these stats that I'm a better MTT player than STT? If so, why would this be?

[/ QUOTE ]No, but STTs are very different from MTTs
Edit: if you don't understand this, you should stop playing stts and read up on em.

[/ QUOTE ]

listen to this guy

[pokerg1]

u have to play different for mtt and stt

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing poker recreationally for about 2 1/2 years now and became a winning player (I think) at low limits this year. The following stats are lifetime and include all of my learning curve.

STT Stats:

Pokerstars, 100 stt -$100
Full Filt, 400 stt + $300

MTT Stats:

Absolute, 89 MTT + $600

Does it appear from these stats that I'm a better MTT player than STT? If so, why would this be?

[/ QUOTE ]

These stats do NOT say that you're a better MTT player than STT. There isn't nearly enough information to make this call.

You have 89 MTT's on Absolute, and you're up $600. For all we know you could have come 1st in one MTT for $2000, and busted in last place in 88 of 'em... If that was the case you'd be a pretty piss-poor MTT player.

Same goes for the STT finishes - for all we know you have a really big score one time on FT, or a really big beat one time on stars.

This, combined with the fact that your sample size is really (really) small, means we can't draw any conclusions about what you may be better at.

OT

[BrandiFan]

FWIW, I am down in stts (learned to play right a few months ago and am up since then) and up a pretty respectable amount in MTTs. I was for a while playing winning mtt strat and losing stt strat.

[pokerg1]

the fee to play stts is a rip, all fees and rakes are

[brad2002tj]

MTT stats:

Wins: 0 0.00%

Seconds: 2 2.15% Average Finish: 38/100

Thirds: 3 3.23%

Top Three Rate: 5.38% Average Field Size: 295

Final Tables: 9 9.68%

Cashes: 12 12.90%

At full tilt it is almost all $6-$10 stt with 12% roi, check sharkscope for details. Been running even for the last 100 or so STT's which has caused me to question myself.

[schwah]

fyi to get some idea of what your winrate is you'll need to play something like 1-2k stts or 5-10k mtts

even then its possible to run quite a bit below or above expectation. my lifetime roi in sngs is around 12% but ive had a 1k+ game losing streak. and variance in mtts is waaaay worse.

400 stts or whatever is close to meaningless and 90 mtts is meaningless

[Merek007]

Don't look at the raw numbers...look at your game!
[ QUOTE ]

400 stts or whatever is close to meaningless and 90 mtts is meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I actually am a winning player and it is only variance!!!?? Yeah Ha!!! At ministacks I was a winner(+600%) over my first 250+ 18sngs and small mtts..... -600% over the next 150.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I had 24 consecutiver 18 man SNGs without a single KK or AA(the suprise was I was up 50% over those??) I can't imagine the strange streaks the high volume guys have seen.