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

[microbet]

[ 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.

[eurythmech]

[ 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.

[Webster]

IF you are hitting 56% I'd say you are doing well and not outside the box.

I suck and NL (was a winning limit player until....)and I don't multi-table SNGs and in the $22 I'm in the 28% range. I have to think that LIVE games are much worse then online so doubling 25% to 50% is not out of the question.

I think the real answer is "no one really knows".

You are our test monkey :-)

I no longer play poker to make money like I used to (1999 to 2006), more for entertainment.

[fishyak]

[ 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.

[eurythmech]

Your question is pointless.

Like someone said, your ROI might be something like 56% +/- 60%, what the hell could you make out of that?

[fishyak]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

"Please" is a new word from you. Please see my last response to microbet as well. I am already aware of the statistical limitations inherent in my request.

If you want the attention of a poster, your "bedside manner" evidenced in your first two posts sux donkey dix. Starting with "please" gives you a much better shot at being listened to. If you want people to accept your "reach out" foul language and a condencending attitude are GUARANTEED to turn people off. If you want people to genuinely attend to your responses, how you say it will determine whether your have a listening audience or not. It's up to you.

[Webster]

I honestly don't understand how people can be so arrogant on this forum. Is it an age problem where most posters are still in their 20's?

fishyak has a 100% valid question.

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". Would you say "totally meaningless" question?

No you would say that is very good and people strive for .300 and while you only have 250 at bats you are AT THIS POINT achieving goodness.

BUT HERE you say - "TOTALLY MEANINGLESS!!, .300 is worthless because it changes over time and you need 2000 at bats to even have a clue of you are good. And after 2000 at bats the pitchers are different so even 2000 is not enough!"

all he is asking for is basically what percentage is a good hitter. OR in poker terms, what ROI is a good ROI for live games with 2 payouts!

[eurythmech]

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.

[eurythmech]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't understand how people can be so arrogant on this forum. Is it an age problem where most posters are still in their 20's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Age has got nothing to do with it. Intolerance of static and incompetence is a life long blessing.

[ QUOTE ]
fishyak has a 100% valid question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not only retarded; it's common. Hence, there should be someone already flamed for this in the archives.

[ 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". Would you say "totally meaningless" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the first thing about baseball, but of course the question is pointless. The only meaningful aim is to have as good a batting average as possible. Tell me ONE use of aiming for a preset number.

[ QUOTE ]
No you would say that is very good and people strive for .300 and while you only have 250 at bats you are AT THIS POINT achieving goodness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the above numbers are reasonably aligned with your judgement of them, I'd say "hey, if you could maintain this for a significant amount of time, you'd be a top class player" or something like that.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT HERE you say - "TOTALLY MEANINGLESS!!, .300 is worthless because it changes over time and you need 2000 at bats to even have a clue of you are good. And after 2000 at bats the pitchers are different so even 2000 is not enough!"

[/ 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 ]
all he is asking for is basically what percentage is a good hitter. OR in poker terms, what ROI is a good ROI for live games with 2 payouts!

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what you mean by "good". A positive ROI is a good start. 10% is better. 20% is even better.

[Jbrochu]

[ 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". Would you say "totally meaningless" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because we have 100+ years of data on the subject of batting averages.