*New* Official Gigabet Crap thread - Page 2

The4thFilm · #11 01-31-2006, 02:04 PM

Post deleted by citanul

Poolgod32 · #12 01-31-2006, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

jiggaman0204 · #13 01-31-2006, 02:12 PM

Better luck to you with the 22s, Giga! I just saw you win one of them by going straight over straight HE. We're all rooting for you!

pr0crast · #14 01-31-2006, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

[/ QUOTE ]
What flames? It's already been mathematically "proven" via rvg's simulations that a 75% ROI player is only going to be down after 50 SNGs roughly 1 in 100,000 times.

Thus, if Gig were to play the 11s with the same style he is currently playing, 75% is mathematically impossible.

The4thFilm · #15 01-31-2006, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think Gigabet ever said he was a 75% ROI player. He questioned the assumption that the $11s could not be beat for that ROI thats all.

[/ QUOTE ]
And he was brutally humbled.

[/ QUOTE ]

my god. there is no way in which he was "brutally humbled." you're almost as bad at that guy with the "don't share hand histories it's against the T&C.

c

[/ QUOTE ]
Claim: 75% ROI. Actual: -5% ROI. That's as brutal as it gets.

good2cu · #16 01-31-2006, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

[/ QUOTE ]
What flames? It's already been mathematically "proven" via rvg's simulations that a 75% ROI player is only going to be down after 50 SNGs roughly 1 in 100,000 times.

Thus, if Gig were to play the 11s with the same style he is currently playing, 75% is mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm going to be the first to state the ovbious. Giga probaly wasn't playing close to opmitally for this level as it was his first 100 low-stakes SNGs in ummmm probaly like 3 years? I still think 75% is well out of reach, but this is a silly reason to think so.

Poolgod32 · #17 01-31-2006, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

[/ QUOTE ]
What flames? It's already been mathematically "proven" via rvg's simulations that a 75% ROI player is only going to be down after 50 SNGs roughly 1 in 100,000 times.

Thus, if Gig were to play the 11s with the same style he is currently playing, 75% is mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute. All you math geeks on here are going to accept the assertion that a 100 game sample can tell you ANYTHING about the possible ROIs attainable at that level? Im not talking about what could happen. The poster said that proved that it was impossible to attain that ROI. From a 100 game sample? I dont think you can prove the sky is blue from just 100 games

And I mean math geeks in the nicest way

The4thFilm · #18 01-31-2006, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

[/ QUOTE ]
What flames? It's already been mathematically "proven" via rvg's simulations that a 75% ROI player is only going to be down after 50 SNGs roughly 1 in 100,000 times.

Thus, if Gig were to play the 11s with the same style he is currently playing, 75% is mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute. All you math geeks on here are going to accept the assertion that a 100 game sample can tell you ANYTHING about the possible ROIs attainable at that level? Im not talking about what could happen. The poster said that proved that it was impossible to attain that ROI. From a 100 game sample? I dont think you can prove the sky is blue from just 100 games

And I mean math geeks in the nicest way

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read what he posted or are you just an idiot?

Gigabet · #19 01-31-2006, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And he was brutally humbled

[/ 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.

Freudian · #20 01-31-2006, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you truly believe that a 100 game sample proves anything

[/ QUOTE ]
A 100 game sample in the red is enough to prove 75% is well out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the flames begin

[/ QUOTE ]
What flames? It's already been mathematically "proven" via rvg's simulations that a 75% ROI player is only going to be down after 50 SNGs roughly 1 in 100,000 times.

Thus, if Gig were to play the 11s with the same style he is currently playing, 75% is mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm going to be the first to state the ovbious. Giga probaly wasn't playing close to opmitally for this level as it was his first 100 low-stakes SNGs in ummmm probaly like 3 years? I still think 75% is well out of reach, but this is a silly reason to think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I saw (which of course means a lot of information was hidden from me) I really doubt he even played a 30%+ ROI poker. If he kept playing he would probably change quite a few of his assumptions about how the lower limits and the players there work, and squeeze a few more percentages out of them.