ROI by Level - Party Poker STT

[TomCollins]

Of the players at Party Poker, I would classify ROI into a few categories. Obviously, it is much more impressive to be beating the $200s for 15% than beating the $10s for 25%.

So of the following categories, what ROI%s would you classify in each range:

1) Break-Even/Slightly Winning Players (0% ROI to...)
2) Solid Players
3) Crushing the game
4) Upper bounds.

For example, if a player had a 40% ROI at the 100s, this is easily crushing the table.

Any thoughts from $10 to $200 are welcome.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the players at Party Poker, I would classify ROI into a few categories. Obviously, it is much more impressive to be beating the $200s for 15% than beating the $10s for 25%.

So of the following categories, what ROI%s would you classify in each range:

1) Break-Even/Slightly Winning Players (0% ROI to...)
2) Solid Players
3) Crushing the game
4) Upper bounds.

For example, if a player had a 40% ROI at the 100s, this is easily crushing the table.

Any thoughts from $10 to $200 are welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

true, it may be more impressive to be beating the $215s for 15% than it is the $10s at 25%, but then the issue becomes, "How do you rate lower ROIs at higher buy-in levels? do these lower ROIs get more credit because the buy-in is higher and the players are better? does a consistent 15% ROI at the $215s say that you're a solid player?" IMHO, i don't think you can group the bigger buy-ins where ROI is routinely lower with lower buy-ins where higher ROI are alot more commonplace.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but currently my stats are:

10s: +24.76%
20s: +14.54%
30s: +7.67%

That's over a sample-size of roughly 2000 tournaments. A couple of caveats to go with those numbers: (1) I rarely play above the 20s (I originally did this while I was still trying to figure out where the "sweet spot" was, and it's clearly the 20s for me); (2) this includes several multiweek "learning phases" where I clearly got off my game and had to regroup, analyze and improve; and (3) much of this time has been playing to pay my bills, so my ROI is probably a bit lower than it would be in a more pressure-neutral situation.

That being said, if I had to lay out tests for "crushing", "strong", "decent", etc, I'd largely just be pulling numbers out of my ass. I can say, however, that when I'm getting reasonable distributions of cards and not getting an insanely high rate of bad beats, it's fairly normal for me to pull 40% at either the 10s or the 20s, and under those circumstances I consider myself to be dominating the game.

Your mileage may vary, of course.


q/q

[stupidsucker]

I am interested to know what the general 2+2 public feels a "decent ROI" is by each level 10s-200s (curious on the steps too)

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested to know what the general 2+2 public feels a "decent ROI" is by each level 10s-200s (curious on the steps too)

[/ QUOTE ]

and also, what does a low ROI at the $109s and $215s means when judging how well a player is doing in those games? we all know that these two levels have the best, most skillful players. however, a 15% ROI seems too low to warrant too much undue credit. is'nt 15% like $32 a tournament at $215?

[TomCollins]

My sample size is terribly low since I started keeping track, but only 101 50s and 41 100s, I'm at
41.31% 50
36.50% 100

I started out with 6 out of the money finishes in the 100s, so a few wins have this pumped up.

I must be running well, and my sample size is terrible. I've been playing these off and on for the last 2 years, but just don't have a lot of data previously.

When someone says "x is killing the 100s", I am curious, what ROI are we talking about? 50%? 30%?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
does a consistent 15% ROI at the $215s say that you're a solid player?

[/ QUOTE ]

it doesn't say that you're solid, it says that you're superb.

[Myst]

For the $100+9s, 50% is unsustainable. I would say 28-30% would be a killer ROI to have for that level (long term)

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am interested to know what the general 2+2 public feels a "decent ROI" is by each level 10s-200s (curious on the steps too)

[/ QUOTE ]

and also, what does a low ROI at the $109s and $215s means when judging how well a player is doing in those games? we all know that these two levels have the best, most skillful players. however, a 15% ROI seems too low to warrant too much undue credit. is'nt 15% like $32 a tournament at $215?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think more than a small handful of players can beat the $200s for more than 15%. If that many.

[Myst]

For reference, ZeeJustin (recognized as one of the best $200+15) SNG players on PartyPoker had an 18% ROI on the $200+15s.

[Irieguy]

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), here's my opinion on what good-great-max. attainable ROIs are at the various levels, playing 1 table. In parenthesis I'll put the multitable numbers assuming 8 tables at $11-$33, and 6 tables at $55-$215. This is for Party:

$11: 25%-35%-45% (20-30-40)
$22: 20%-30%-42% (15-25-37)
$33: 15%-25%-40% (12-20-32)
$55: 10%-20%-33% (8-16-23)
$109: 8%-14%-22% (5-10-18)
$215: 2%-10%-18% (1-6-10)

Some people would argue that you should flip-flop the numbers for the $10's and $20's. This is based on the theory that it's easier to win when you play against better players for more money... so I could be way off there.

Irieguy

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


I must be running well, and my sample size is terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sample size isn't terrible. It is what it is. It's just a waste of time and mental perspective to use the term ROI when discussing your results. There was a great quote on CSI the other night that reminded me of some of the discussions regarding statistics on this forum:

"YOU can be wrong. I can be wrong. The evidence can't be wrong, it's just evidence." -Gris

[ QUOTE ]
When someone says "x is killing the 100s", I am curious, what ROI are we talking about? 50%? 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]

That phrase is only used when somebody is running hot. They are therefore talking about a few hundred SNGs or less, so ROI is meaningless. I've never seen anybody beat the $109's for more than 20% +/- 5% with 90% confidence. But I would love to hear that it's possible.

Irieguy

[XChamp]

About how many SnG's do you need for 90% confidence, given average variance?


Wait, better yet, where can I go to figure this out for myself? Give a man a fish..teach a man to fish...blah blah

thanks.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am interested to know what the general 2+2 public feels a "decent ROI" is by each level 10s-200s (curious on the steps too)

[/ QUOTE ]

and also, what does a low ROI at the $109s and $215s means when judging how well a player is doing in those games? we all know that these two levels have the best, most skillful players. however, a 15% ROI seems too low to warrant too much undue credit. is'nt 15% like $32 a tournament at $215?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think more than a small handful of players can beat the $200s for more than 15%. If that many.

[/ QUOTE ]

herein lays one of the reasons a low ROI at $215 should'nt be grouped in with higher ROI at the lower levels.

[Mammux]

Do all the players at the party 215s have a solid grip on the fundamentals of the stt game? I play $50-$400 stts on cryptologic and would estimate that 60 percent of the players have major weaknesses in their play. The one I see most often is lack of aggression in short-handed and heads-up situations. Another one is players folding almost any hand to a check-raise. Are the players at party more proficient?

-Magnus

[Irieguy]

You can calculate a 90% confidence interval for any number of SNGs, it's just that the interval would be very, very wide.

If you want to know +/- 5%, which I would say is pretty helpful, you need well over 1000. But it depends on your ITM% and your SD. If you want to know +/- 1%, you need about 100,000. Bummer, huh?

Aleo's new spreadsheet calculates it for you, though. I think it has 60% and 90% confidence intervals... I can't remember right this second.

Irieguy

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Do all the players at the party 215s have a solid grip on the fundamentals of the stt game? I play $50-$400 stts on cryptologic and would estimate that 60 percent of the players have major weaknesses in their play. The one I see most often is lack of aggression in short-handed and heads-up situations. Another one is players folding almost any hand to a check-raise. Are the players at party more proficient?

-Magnus

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been said many times over on this site that Party has the best SNG players in the world. nobody that i know of-- with the exception of me-- has questioned that statement.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
For reference, ZeeJustin (recognized as one of the best $200+15) SNG players on PartyPoker had an 18% ROI on the $200+15s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he posted this anywhere or something he has mentioned to you? I'd be interested in the link if so. I remember an old thread where he said he was at ~10% (bit higher I think) but it definitely wasn't 18%.

Yugoslav

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), here's my opinion on what good-great-max. attainable ROIs are at the various levels, playing 1 table. In parenthesis I'll put the multitable numbers assuming 8 tables at $11-$33, and 6 tables at $55-$215. This is for Party:

$11: 25%-35%-45% (20-30-40)
$22: 20%-30%-42% (15-25-37)
$33: 15%-25%-40% (12-20-32)
$55: 10%-20%-33% (8-16-23)
$109: 8%-14%-22% (5-10-18)
$215: 2%-10%-18% (1-6-10)

Some people would argue that you should flip-flop the numbers for the $10's and $20's. This is based on the theory that it's easier to win when you play against better players for more money... so I could be way off there.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I really running that well

My best guess for the 50s and 100s-

good-great-max
50s - 15%-30%-45%
100s - 10%-25%-40%

I'm sure I'll eat crow when I play more. But I just am not that impressed by the quality of play so far. But every piece of evidence I've heard says that the 200s are a world of difference from the 100s. I doubt I could sustain half the win rate I've had at the 50s.

Side note- what ROI do you think is reasonable at the Step tournaments?

200-500-1000s particularly

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do all the players at the party 215s have a solid grip on the fundamentals of the stt game? I play $50-$400 stts on cryptologic and would estimate that 60 percent of the players have major weaknesses in their play. The one I see most often is lack of aggression in short-handed and heads-up situations. Another one is players folding almost any hand to a check-raise. Are the players at party more proficient?

-Magnus

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been said many times over on this site that Party has the best SNG players in the world. nobody that i know of-- with the exception of me-- has questioned that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're referring to the idea that Party has some of the best (most skilled) SNG players in the world. Party also most likely has the fishiest SNG players in the world, hence the reason that some of the best players would want to play there. And for the record best in this case is qualified as most skilled at the fast blind structure and relatively low starting chip count of party SNGs (although I'm sure the great 215 players would do just fine in any other SNG structure).

I'm one of the fish that I was mentioning, so what do I know? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yugoslav

[UMTerp]

Sample size isn't huge for me, but I'm getting there... and I'm at 18.3% ROI 8-tabling the $55+$5 Turbos on Stars since late November when I started keeping stats (451 SNG's). I'm quite certain I'm not the best player there, but I'd guess I'm top 2 or 3 percent.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do all the players at the party 215s have a solid grip on the fundamentals of the stt game? I play $50-$400 stts on cryptologic and would estimate that 60 percent of the players have major weaknesses in their play. The one I see most often is lack of aggression in short-handed and heads-up situations. Another one is players folding almost any hand to a check-raise. Are the players at party more proficient?

-Magnus

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been said many times over on this site that Party has the best SNG players in the world. nobody that i know of-- with the exception of me-- has questioned that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're referring to the idea that Party has some of the best (most skilled) SNG players in the world. Party also most likely has the fishiest SNG players in the world, hence the reason that some of the best players would want to play there. And for the record best in this case is qualified as most skilled at the fast blind structure and relatively low starting chip count of party SNGs (although I'm sure the great 215 players would do just fine in any other SNG structure).

I'm one of the fish that I was mentioning, so what do I know? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

when Daliman said it to me (i think it was in the Ultra High Buy-in SNG thread), i recall him saying "best in the world". i've heard it other times too. i did'nt take it to mean, "we [Party's $215 players]are the best at a fast blind structure format with low starting chipstacks". in that case, that does'nt make them the best in the world, it puts them in the cream of the crop on Party/skins. no one really answered my question as to why they [Party's $215ers]
don't play the Turbos on Stars with a bigger starting chipstack, so we'll never really know how good overall they are. henceforth, i balk at "best in the world" affirmations when the overrall bases are'nt covered.

[The Yugoslavian]

Ok, fine, I'll stay out of this -- if Dali wants to tangle, he's more than welcome to address your issue. I'm not qualified to speak to 'best in the world' for just about any activity.

Oh, except I'm positive that your long lost cousin Desdia is the best in the world at $5/1 SNGs at Party Poker (of course when playing on his girlfriend's account) and it's not even close (do you see why?). /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yugoslav

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, except I'm positive that your long lost cousin Desdia is the best in the world at $5/1 SNGs at Party Poker (of course when playing on his girlfriend's account) and it's not even close (do you see why?) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it looks like the SNG world is now dominated by two families: The Gigabets and The Desdias. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
when Daliman said [...] i did'nt take it to mean, "we [Party's $215 players]are the best at a fast blind structure format with low starting chipstacks".

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. FWIW, i started that thread to pose the question of:

"Is it possible that shortstack/fastblind SnGs cant be beaten for more than the vig"

I have the suspicion that once most players at a level can play 99% "mistake free" poker, it becomes like playing 5-card stud. The money goes around, and pays vig every game, most players lose small amounts, the very best grind out a little.

Even at 215's i doubt more than 10% are consistent winners. Fast turnover of parlayers though.

As mentioned, 18% seems to be the maximum long term claim.
Great would have to be closer to 10%
Thus, good would be anything above 0%
Average, definately negEV.

And dead money is going to decrease every level you move up from here. It only gets harder to beat the vig.

[Okee]

[ QUOTE ]
Sample size isn't huge for me, but I'm getting there... and I'm at 18.3% ROI 8-tabling the $55+$5 Turbos on Stars since late November when I started keeping stats (451 SNG's). I'm quite certain I'm not the best player there, but I'd guess I'm top 2 or 3 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if u are 8 tabling the turbos you are playing close to 16 games /hr, which means you are making 175 bucks per hour? Hats off to you.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
60% and 90% confidence intervals... I can't remember right this second.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, aprox 65% and 95%, or more correctly, to 1 and 2 SD.

It also calculates to whatever other % that you want. You just need to change the little grey field.

As for XChamp's question,

You might want to check out this thread:

Confidence Calculations (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/favlinker.php?Cat=&Entry=54096&F_Board=singletable &Thread=1373360&partnumber=&postmarker=)

or, as Irie suggested, just use one of the many spreadsheets which already does this for you.

There is one at:

http://www.aleomagus.freeservers.com/Spreadsheet

(the confidence calculator.xls file)

You may need to enter this site manually, and not just link to it in order to download this.

Regards
Brad S

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really running that well

My best guess for the 50s and 100s-

good-great-max
.....
100s - 10%-25%-40%

I'm sure I'll eat crow when I play more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear crow tastes like chicken. Let me know when you find out... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If those numbers were sustainable at the 109s, there would be no reason for a top player to play the 215s. Dividing by 2 will get you closer to the real answer.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
no one really answered my question as to why they [Party's $215ers] don't play the Turbos on Stars with a bigger starting chipstack, so we'll never really know how good overall they are. henceforth, i balk at "best in the world" affirmations when the overrall bases are'nt covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game selection at the higher buy-ins at Stars is virtually non-existent. Getting a game at all (or at least without a long wait) is a big issue at non-peak hours.

Smaller fish pool, more sharks. Of course, I haven't played a whole lot (maybe 50), so someone could step in and correct me on this - just my impression so far.

[DCJ311]

Over 250 $105 turbo sit and gos on Pokerstars I had a ROI of 22.8% (factoring in vig), which was the best for me at any reasonably high buyin, although that is a small sample size.