ROI - What is a good target for small live SNG's? - Page 4

microbet · #31 10-23-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He saying that your 56% ROI as calculated would have a very small confidence level Like your ROI may be 56% +/- 60%. Therefore, regardless of what you calculate it really isn't a measure of how you are doing in the game until you have played thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, just like that. Also, in live SNGs you'll never know because you can't play them fast enough to even pretend the game conditions are consistent over a reasonable sample.

OP, yes, your ROI is easy to calculate. I was talking about your expected ROI based on your strategy and the strategies of your opponents.

I should probably stay out of these threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not stay out of the post, but find out a little about the poster first. The limitations of sample size and skill changes over time for live players is a discussion we've beaten to death in the SSLHE forum. I, personally, am well aware of these limitations. (College minor, statistics, a long time ago) But even with those limitations, attempts at measurement are not without value. It makes no sense to give up keeping score altogether.

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 ]

Actually, you're right. Your post sounded a little like you think the 11 sngs are meaningful, and maybe there is a bit of a brag there, but could be you are just asking about what we use for the standard measurement in SNGs and how we calculate it. If you hadn't mentioned the results from your 11 SNGs you probably wouldn't have had any negative(ish) responses.

In that case, yes, you have 56% ROI.

I don't think it's wrong to keep track. I certainly did for the couple years that I played SNGs. But, as I keep repeating myself, there is a problem with the live SNGs. You will never have much confidence in any true ROI because they can't be played fast enough and game conditions and your strategy will change over time.

Your title also said what ROI to shoot for, which is weird, so I just gave an answer that meant you should shoot for winning all of them.

I think a very very good player's expectation in a STT probably maxes out at about 45% or maybe a little higher with a 10 percent rake and truly horrible opponents. Even low stakes games and live games will sometimes have a line up that is at least only moderately bad and you'll be looking at a much lower expectation for that game. You probably have a higher rake and maybe your opponents aren't always terrible, so that's why 30% is probably reasonable.

Peace.

Webster · #32 10-23-2007, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a very very good player's expectation in a STT probably maxes out at about 45% or maybe a little higher against with a 10 percent rake and truly horrible opponents. Even low stakes games and live games will sometimes have a line up that is at least only moderately bad and you'll be looking at a much lower expectation for that game. You probably have a higher rake and maybe your opponents aren't always terrible, so that's why 30% is probably reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is/was the answer he was looking for.

On a side notw I don't even read what euryth says - it all blends together into blah blah! LOL

eurythmech · #33 10-23-2007, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On a side notw I don't even read what euryth says - it all blends together into blah blah! LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's kind of hard to come to terms with oneself's ignorance.

fishyak · #34 10-23-2007, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're right. Your post sounded a little like you think the 11 sngs are meaningful, and maybe there is a bit of a brag there, but could be you are just asking about what we use for the standard measurement in SNGs and how we calculate it. If you hadn't mentioned the results from your 11 SNGs you probably wouldn't have had any negative(ish) responses. I don't think it's wrong to keep track. I certainly did for the couple years that I played SNGs. Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for taking the time to sort this out. I see where I could have lead you astray, too. Respect is earned, you earned it here.

fishyak · #35 10-23-2007, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The only one who has got anything to lose from you not listening to me, is yourself.
I couldn't care less if you did. I'd just prefer it if you'd stop talking jibberish that has already been disproven in this very thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be perfectly happy taking advice from likes of Webster and microbet. Here are some truly meaningless statistics: My personal score of you in the HOT AIR catagory: 92%. And in the CONTENT catagory: you rate a stellar 15%.

eurythmech · #36 10-23-2007, 02:16 PM

Right, advice mean different things depending upon who gave them.
Right.

Artard.

Webster · #37 10-23-2007, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
HOT AIR category: 92%. And in the CONTENT catagory: you rate a stellar 15%.

[/ QUOTE ]

now THAT is funny!

jeffnc · #38 10-23-2007, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even assuming it would be possible to know what kind of ROI a world class player, or at least a very good one, could achieve in your POS live SnGs

[/ QUOTE ]

stfu

jeffnc · #39 10-23-2007, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you've played golf only once, your score against par means something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. "Playing golf once" would mean taking 1 stroke, to make an analogy to poker. So "playing golf once" as you meant it would mean about equal to 100 poker SnGs. You get a temporary golf handicap only after 10 rounds, and a permanent one only after 20 rounds. Even the USGA understands variance. So compare that to 1,000 and 2,000 SnGs respectively.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's so "silly" can you suggest a better measure of performance that captures: 1) all income and expenses, 2) includes information about profit or loss, and 3) allows for comparisons between players and "courses" if the players keep score honestly?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a good one for poker. That's one of the reasons bad players play so long without knowing they're bad. It's one of the unanswerable questions in the world. By definition, once you've played enough to be significant, you are no longer the player you were once you started.

jeffnc · #40 10-23-2007, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
POS live SnGs

[/ QUOTE ]

eurythmech - you obviously have me mistaken for someone who cares what you think or say. Don't waste your precious time on me by responding to any of my posts, OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am helping you get started on logical thinking. Please accept the reach-out.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're just being a d-bag. But you knew that already, and you think you're witty and cute.