Difference btwn. 30+3 and 50+5

[slydeni]

I play 30+3 on Party and win consistantly. I avg. about $10-$16 a tournament... 36% ROI. I have been doing well in these over past few months, and built up a nice bankroll.

BUT!!! I got creamed at 50+5's. Is there a significant difference in players between the two? Has anyone had this experience? Any thoughts on your experience here would be appreciated.

thanx
sly

[zaphod]

How many tournamnents do you have at each level?

I have about 200 SNG's at the 30 level(actually quite a bit more but only 200 were i have logged my results), and are thinking about gradually moving up to the 50's.
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.
My plan is to play 1 30$ and 1 50$(i usually play 2 tables), and maybee play like 10 or 20 50 dollar tournaments and evaluate my results.

So what is your impression about the difference between these two tournaments?

[slydeni]

zaph-
sounds like we are on same path... I have about 200 as well and am consistantly winning 30+3's. I will tell you this... the 50+5 are much tougher. They are not unbeatable. And granted I only played 20 tournys at 50+5...but I could just tell right away they were tougher players. They are not so much overly creative players, just a lot of tighter ones. This led to not winning as much with my big hands, and not really being able to play in murky situations. It was tougher to extricate money from these players.

All in all...it seemed like a lot less fish. And I have grown dependant on these fish to pay some of my bills over past few months.

I am curious as to your - and other's - opinions of the 50+5's. Good luck...

sly

[Laughingboy]

I've read that it's common to have lousy results when you first move up to the next level, not because the level of play is SO much higher, but because you psych yourself out and don't play as well yourself for a while. Think back: were you really as confident, and ready to make aggressive plays when appropriate?

I'm about to try moving from 33s to 55s myself, so I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

[slydeni]

yah there is some merit to your point- definitely. I was certainly a bit more timid than usual. The players, however, were much better - again, more solid at least. I did not see as many goofs in there calling all ins with 46s, and such. But maybe I do need to stick it out a bit longer and see how it goes.

I would like to hear from anyone who has already made the jump...and perhaps has some confidenbce bossting pep talk for us who are considering the move.

sly

[danng721]

I'm also having the same problem as you are, and the main reason is because of the deeper starting stacks. This results in a larger amount of players remaining when the blinds are really high, meaning we still have to play real poker at 100/200 and 200/400 instead of the all-in poker that we're used to at these levels.

Other than that, there are still alot of fish in the 50's... but there are also alot more good players as well.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually 36% ROI with 200 SnGs is pretty darn significant. You are 90% confident you are at least a 10% ROI player or better based on the analysis posted here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1570111&page=6&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

Pokerscott

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually 36% ROI with 200 SnGs is pretty darn significant. You are 90% confident you are at least a 10% ROI player or better based on the analysis posted here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1570111&page=6&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way those numbers are accurate.

200 is not enough SNG's to get a good idea about where you are long term. I think the biggest mistake young SNGers make is moving up levels after having what they consider to be semi-long term success at a lower level. 200 is really nothing. When you move up to almost double the buy in, if you go on a downstreak early you can almost blow your bankroll.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt a higher level, considering you may very well be giving up money by not playing there. The thing you have to realize, is the fact that you had a 36% ROI over 200 sngs (really insignificant), means zilch about where you are going to stand at the 50+5's.

[slydeni]

well you may be mixing mine and Zaph's posts; but nonetheless...my stats are 36% ROI at 30+3 and 200 sng's... so if that is what the #'s mean...awesome!

My concern is that I did not feel like the 50+5's were as easy to beat. I expected a higher level of play...but it seems quite a bit more difficult. I was inquiring as to whether anyone had any experience at 50+5's and could disseminate some knowledge as to how much more difficult they are...or am I getting a distorted/ paranoyd perception?

sly

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

[The Yugoslavian]

I'd have to say the 55s are WAAAAAY easier. Just check this out, over the last three nights:

20 55s
3 1st
3 2nd
2 3rd
+$300, +27% ROI

27 33s
2 1sts
1 2nd
2 3rds
-$381, -43% ROI
(19 OOTM with only 1 3rd in between them)

So obviously the 55s are a cakewalk and the 33s are murderous. I'm thinking about getting 4 flat panel monitors that do 1600x1200 a la what ZJ seems to be doing soon and just 16 table the 55s. It's obvious I'm just too good for the 33s and will lose $$ there unless I move up, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Oh, but seriously, I'd say that the 55s are much more likely to be 5-7 handed on level 7 and stuff like that. Your raises are respected more (but not *always*) than the 33s and you'll end up getting smacked on or near the bubble when the blinds are huge and you need to try to take them down to stay alive.

Irieguy has posted about this in Rythm in the madness 2 I believe after he completed a significant run of 55s and gave his observations.

Rythm in the madness II - an instant classic (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=1005274 &Forum=All_Forums&Words=madness&Searchpage=0&Limit =25&Main=1005274&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=15 228&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&o ldertype=&bodyprev=#Post1005274)

Taking shots at the 55s is fine -- they're definitely not unbeatable by any means (but given my insignificant sample size there it's not like I *know* if I'm really beating them).

FWIW I lost my first 5 and didn't play any 55s for quite a while even though 4 of them it was as a huge favorite and the other on a coin flip. When I felt like my bankroll wouldn't be phased too much I decided to take another shot.

Yugoslav

[slydeni]

this is a good point i had not considered. the 1000 starting chips does make for a longer tourney,a nd more players in late. how to adjust? suggestions?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

He *obviously* took a ton of time to go through your posts and methodology about how you arrived at your ROI analysis. So, I'm sure it's more than merely 'feel,' /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Yugoslav

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

2,500 recorded SNG's at a single level (20+2). ROI variations have swung 80% (anywhere from 50% ROI to -30% ROI) over 150 game sets. From my experience on these boards, we find people who come and post about their success over smaller sample sizes (50-500), and then don't neccesarily hear much more about it because their first swing (which most of the time was up) ended and it turns out they are close to break even than they first thought.

I think beating the 10% rake even at levels of 10+1 to 30+3 is extremely hard to do (mulitabling atleast), and doing so is often marginalized on this board. Almost any competent single table tournament player is perfectly capable of dominating over a small stretch of 200, but very few are able to do it on a long term basis.

[slydeni]

yes i agree - 200 sng is small to base long term conjectures on. I took a stab, and for one reason or another...just was not feeling 50+5 yet.

But my que3stion is::: IN your expereience... how much better are the players at 50+5 than 30+3?

sly

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
yes i agree - 200 sng is small to base long term conjectures on. I took a stab, and for one reason or another...just was not feeling 50+5 yet.

But my que3stion is::: IN your expereience... how much better are the players at 50+5 than 30+3?

sly

[/ QUOTE ]

I am actually very alone with this opinion on this board, but I think there is a significant difference between all levels, at least on Party (only place I played).

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
2,500 recorded SNG's at a single level (20+2). ROI variations have swung 80% (anywhere from 50% ROI to -30% ROI) over 150 game sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 5th and 95th percentile results for a 10% ROI player over 100 SnGs should be between -15% and 37% ROI. Not too far off from your swing range I guess. However, one persons results can be just about anything if you have enough people out there doing something.

The statistics of the swings are pretty straight forward to calculate. You can calculate them analytically (there is a spreadsheet floating around to do that) or calculate them numerically. Of course, you can believe what you want lol

Pokerscott

[Mr_J]

Ok I'm no maths geek, but 90% is inside 2 std deviations, which is not statistically significant?

[Mr_J]

And I'll throw in that in my short stint at the $50s, the competition didn't really seem much tougher at all. Maybe I'm just not good enough to really notice it yet.

[Irieguy]

After reading Yugo's post, I re-read my "Rhythm in the Madness II" post for the first time since posting it and realized that I had said I would post my results after 500 SNGs at the $55's.

I forgot to do that, so here they are along with a few more comments on the level.

ITM: 38.5%
ROI: 19%

This is mostly playing 6-8 tables at once... and most of my "RITM2" comments pertain to playing 1 or 2 tables at once.

I still would stand by just about everything I said in my initial analysis, though I fear I still may have been a bit optimistic with what's possible in terms of ITM (42%).

The main issue (for me, anyways) is that I can achieve much better results with less effort and less time at the $33's. My ITM there is around 41% with an ROI of around 28% while 8-tabling. The tournaments also end quicker, so I can play 8 in about 45 minutes.

So, for now anyways, the $55's seem worthless to me. Dropping from 28% to 19% ROI is just too big a drop for me to swallow. Even though my "E" per SNG is higher at the $55's, my $ per hour is higher at the $33's. Most importantly, the variance implications of living at an ROI around 15-20% are much more taxing than the $33 alternative.

My current thought is that the $109's are the "perfect" level, but I've seen plenty of respected 2+2ers get smoked at that level, and my own brief attempts to move up usually begin and end with a 15-20 OOTM run. That's always a million laughs.

I'm trying again soon, so "Rhythm in the Madness III" should appear in a month or two.

Irieguy

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, pshreck was making his claim on feel. He does have experience that suggests his feel is right. Is his feel right, or should we be more inclined to trust the numbers in this case? I do have some background to discuss this beyond the feel level and I certainly have an opinion here, so I will share.

[ QUOTE ]
However, one persons results can be just about anything if you have enough people out there doing something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! Statistics are a funny animal. Many posters have lived periods that fall well outside the 1st or 99th percentile of any confidence intervals we can calculate. I certainly fall into that category. For example, if I were a 20% ROI player at 55's, I would have a 99% confidence (quoting your Monte Carlo simulation) that my results over 50 sng's would be no higher than 76.4%. Well, I am certainly not a 20% player (17.0% over 930 55's), but I do have a stretch of 50 sng's with a 83.6% ROI. On the flip side, still assuming I'm a 20% player (sorry, I don't have a chart for my 17% skill level), I could be 99% confident that over 200 sng's, the worst I could expect would be <font color="red"> (6.4%) </font> ROI. Unfortunately, I have managed to have a string of 200 sng's with an ROI of <font color="red"> (13.6%) </font> .

How can this be? One player, over the course of only 930 tournaments, has broken the model on both the positive and negative side.

The reason is quite simply really. All the discussion of "meaningful" statistical evaluations that are regularly conducted on this forum need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Are your Monte Carlo simulations scientifically credible? No! For that to be the case, we'd need to be looking at data that comes from independent random trials. One table tournaments at Party Poker certainly do not meet that criteria. In addition, your null model, which assumes an even distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishes, further distorts the analysis. I would bet the original poster had a much higher distribution of 1st place finishes for him to have a 36% ROI. I'm quite sure that there are very few players that have a playing style such that their ITM distrubions stay normalized like that over time.

The bottom line is that running a Monte Carlo simulation on sit-and-go poker tournaments is not a valid statistical analysis. I did find it quite interesting, as I do with most of the statistical discussions on this board, but please do not quote the results as scientifically credible in the future.

What does all this mean? Well, for one thing, I agree very much with pshreck's feel regarding anyone making any sort of conclusion based on 200 sng's.

[Irieguy]

Nice post.

I find Monte Carlo simulations quite helpful for developing some perspective on what to expect... but they are certainly not the end-all, be-all. I also have lived below the 1st and above the 99th percentile with my results. What is often overlooked when discussing the likelihood of certain outcomes is the massive number of trials we are all generating. If I had to pull the trigger of a 100-chamber gun knowing there was only one bullet in it... I could point it at my head and feel confident that I would survive. But if I had to pull the trigger once a minute for one year, I wouldn't much like my chances.

Pokerscott is not necessarily wrong (the evidence can't be wrong, it's just evidence)... it's just that pshreck's comments are more accurate from a practical standpoint. You don't know a thing after 200 SNGs. Not a single, worthwhile thing.

Irieguy

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
What is often overlooked when discussing the likelihood of certain outcomes is the massive number of trials we are all generating. If I had to pull the trigger of a 100-chamber gun knowing there was only one bullet in it... I could point it at my head and feel confident that I would survive. But if I had to pull the trigger once a minute for one year, I wouldn't much like my chances.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a great analogy. If you play 2500 SnGs you have played 25 seperate 100 SnG sessions. That is like pulling the trigger 25 times. Sooner or later you are going to get something unusual. In fact, if you cherry pick the best and worst 100 SnG stretch in a 2500 stretch I bet the extremes you mention are not at all uncommon.

However if you really are a 10% ROI player, then the next 100 SnGs will likely fall in the range I gave (with 90% confidence /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

Pokerscott