will the real RoI please stand up?

[stupidsucker]

Ive been frustrated over my roi lately and I consider myself a well above average SnG player for the level I am playing on (30s)...

I used to shoot for a 36% RoI and figured I would never get less then a 25% roi over any given 1k game sample. Boy oh Boy was I in for it....I have several spots where my roi dips down to the low teens for 500 games at a time. It seems my average roi after about 3k SnGs at the 30s is going to be closer to 20% then I thought(the latest 13% roi over 500+ SnGs hasnt helped)

Can anyone here tell me "YES" I am getting a 30%plus RoI at the 30s or 50s and YES I have 2k tourneys to prove it???

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

Can anyone here tell me "YES" I am getting a 30%plus RoI at the 30s or 50s and YES I have 2k tourneys to prove it???

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Just not me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. I'm too tired to go look but I'm pretty sure Eastbay is close to this.

Also, do you only want posters who've done it multitabling or are single tablers ok? Also, I'd assume you're only really interested in posters who've done it on Party.

I will wait for someone to step up and answer the gauntlet that has been thrown by the Stupid Sucker (who still somehow beats the rake....must be luck /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

Yugoslav

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Can anyone here tell me "YES" I am getting a 30%plus RoI at the 30s or 50s and YES I have 2k tourneys to prove it???

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Just not me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. I'm too tired to go look but I'm pretty sure Eastbay is close to this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I went through a stretch of about 1k where I had near 40% at 55, but this was mostly 2-tabling.

Ever since I have been 4-8 tabling, I have not been able to duplicate this.

My numbers are now more in the 25% range at $55. I also admit to losing a lot of interest in really focusing on the games, and am content lately to 4-table while watching TV, paying the bills, emailing, or forum surfing. Maybe I could reach 30% while 4-tabling if I payed more attention, but that's just coulda-shoulda-woulda talk.

So, to answer your question: 2-tabling? Yes. 4+-tabling? No.

eastbay

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Can anyone here tell me "YES" I am getting a 30%plus RoI at the 30s or 50s and YES I have 2k tourneys to prove it???

[/ QUOTE ]

Wish I could. I'll have 2K+ SNGs of data in a month and my ROI will NOT be 30%. I've had 38% sustained for close to 400 SNGs (that was cool), but I'm at 11% over my last 350 (so not cool).

I think Eastbay said once he had 2K $55's with an ROI of over 25%... so that kind of implies that 30% at the $33's is possible.

My ROI over 600 $55's is 18.5%... which is starting to seem as significant as saying "I won a $55 SNG once."

ChrisV said in another thread that variance in SNGs is weird because you never lose a huge amount (>40 buy-ins) but you can run poorly for a very long time. I agree with this statement. I think this is because so much of your ROI in a batch of say, 300 SNGs, is dependent on a relatively small number of hands. Let's say over 300 SNGs you end up pushing with 4 players left with a pair against an ace 30 times. You could easily win or lose that hand 20 of the 30 times. 10 4ths instead of 10 1sts is a 50 buy-in swing, which is going to have an enormous effect on your ROI. So, the difference between a 25% ROI and a 5% ROI over 500 SNGs is not as big as we want to believe, I think.

Aleo needs to design a spreadsheet that automatically records your finishes, but will not display your ROI until you've played 2500 SNGs. I sit at my computer every night like a catatonic gnome for 10 minutes staring at my stupid ROI. I feel like a teenage girl staring at her breasts in the mirror every night wishing they would grow, god dammit. The only difference is that at least the girls can salvage a modicum of peace knowing that their breasts won't shrink dramatically over the next 500 viewings.

Irieguy

[Irieguy]

To clarify after reading the other responses: all of my data is 8-tabling.

Irieguy

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
To clarify after reading the other responses: all of my data is 8-tabling.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

I have come to believe this is an important variable. Come to think of it, the biggest credible claim of ROI ever on these forums that I remember was Bozeman's who claimed 50% at $55. He also said he preferred to play only one table at a time, if I remember correctly.

eastbay

[SuitedSixes]

I thought you were going to say,

"To clarify:
modicum
n. pl. mod·i·cums or mod·i·ca

A small, moderate, or token amount"

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To clarify after reading the other responses: all of my data is 8-tabling.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

I have come to believe this is an important variable. Come to think of it, the biggest credible claim of ROI ever on these forums that I remember was Bozeman's who claimed 50% at $55. He also said he preferred to play only one table at a time, if I remember correctly.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I read this too on an old post. I wasn't around to ask, but was there a reason he only liked playing 1 table? It's clearly less profitable in $$/hr from what I can tell.

Also, I, like Irie, have found that my 42% ROI at the 33s over about 700 is not, in fact, my true ROI.

After thinking about my recent downswing, and reading some posts, I'm wondering if the SnGs are getting tougher.

Are the easy money days over?

-Jman28

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I read this too on an old post. I wasn't around to ask, but was there a reason he only liked playing 1 table? It's clearly less profitable in $$/hr from what I can tell.


[/ QUOTE ]

He just said he didn't like multi-tasking, especially on the bubble.

[ QUOTE ]

Are the easy money days over?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. This thought has come up regularly ever since I started reading this board over a year ago.

eastbay

[mcpherzen]

What's up, Sucker? I just logged $33 sng #1300 tonight and I'm at 25.3% ROI with an ITM of 41.5%. My goal has always been an ITM of 44.4% (4 out of 9) and a completely even distribution of 1st, 2nd, and 3rds for an ROI of 34.7%, but I really feel after 1300 of these things that neither of those goals are realistically attainable. I've had sick runs for hundreds at a time of 30%+ ROI (most recently, 316 sngs straight at 41% ROI), but regression to the mean is always a bitch.

I try to keep it in perspective. The ability to 8-table (my last 500 sngs or so have been while 8-tabling) and make $8.35 per tourney means $66.80/hour over time. If I made it my job and "worked" 40 hours per week, my "salary" would be $133k/yr. Not bad for a hobby.

PS: As a side note, for all those interested, Irieguy's breasts are on the smaller side, but they are really nice.

[lacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like a teenage girl staring at her breasts in the mirror every night wishing they would grow, god dammit. The only difference is that at least the girls can salvage a modicum of peace knowing that their breasts won't shrink dramatically over the next 500 viewings.


[/ QUOTE ]

That shrinking ROI is easily the most depressing part of the game for me as well. For background I have been playing fulltime for 1 1/2 years now with good profits in multies, sng's, limit ring to 15/30 and NL ring to $100NL. All stats are from playing 6 to 8 at a time, starting all at the same time and playing till all are complete before starting anymore.

$55's, at 1000 games I was at 22% ROI, at 1500 I'm now down to 17%

$109's, at 500 games I was at 16%, at 850 I'm now at 8%.

It's depressing. I made $4600 last month, an ok almost average month, but it felt like it sucked just couse those damn numbers kept falling all month.

Am I playing crappy? It's possible, but I don't feel like I am. When I review my histries nothing jumps out as really bad (as long as I remember to take my meds anyway).

So, I either ran really well for a really long time, or they will creep back up (option 2 please)

for what it's worth, watching BB/100 in limit is just as depressing during slumps.

Steve

[KidNapster]

[ QUOTE ]
for what it's worth, watching BB/100 in limit is just as depressing during slumps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker in general is just incredibly depressing when you're losing. Actually... the worst is when your play for a living and you play for 70 hours in a week and end up even. Then you're just like "I want my week back. I coulda just sat on the couch and watched TV for the whole week and been in the same spot but without all of the disappointment."

[skipperbob]

It's "gantlet", not "gauntlet"; a gauntlet is a glove made of chainmail

[El Maximo]

[ QUOTE ]

PS: As a side note, for all those interested, Irieguy's breasts are on the smaller side, but they are really nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! Someone finally told us what we've been dieing to know.

[skipperbob]

I'm thrilled to learn that sample size is the ruling criteria to meaningful data; since my sample size (40 years) is too small to be significant, then my results (-$8Mil)could be be a simple statistical analomy within the expected standard deviation....YeeHaw; it's just been a bad run of luck; like I thought all along

[The Bloke]

Actually the two are interchangeable

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gantlet

[1C5]

Great thread. Here I am checking my ROI after every game I play, since I have only played 50 so far, the swings are huge, HUGE I tell ya. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[skipperbob]

Hey Mr. Spoilsport: Here I am enjoying a harmless little foray into pedanticism, expecting plaudits from my fans and the usual uneducated observations from my critics, when you find it necessary to pull-back the green curtain. "O.K.", you wanna play tough; now you're on my list

[The Bloke]

Ooh, on a list! I've never been on a list before. Is it a big list? I'd hate to have to share with too many.

Actually, I'll let you in on a secret. I'd never even heard of the variant 'gantlet' before you mentioned it; I looked it up, and was delighted to find that your pedanticism was misplaced, and thus I had an opportunity to correct you. The resulting recognition and awe I hoped to inspire in others would be, I felt, enough to accelerate myself to a higher stature. Being then able to subdue potential 2+2 opponents would set me on a course for mastering poker, achieving fame, and, ultimately, achieving world domination through the subjugation of the entire human race.

However being on a list will be fine for now.

[skipperbob]

You, Irieguy, ChickenPherzen, and Lorinda; that's it!..Oh, and Gigabet

[The Bloke]

Wow, that's some list.

Could I ask you to take out the list, and write at the top "Great Poker Players That I Know"?

It'll be correct in nearly every case!

[AA suited]

I don't have PT in front of me, but here are my Jan stats:

~175 30+3 31% ITM, 2.15% ROI /images/graemlins/frown.gif
~200 50+5 44% ITM 36% ROI
8 100+9 50% ITM, 110% ROI /images/graemlins/cool.gif

my overall 30+3 ROI will probably be VERY low due to a -50 buy-in streak in Dec /images/graemlins/frown.gif (~600 SnG total 30+3)

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
ChrisV said in another thread that variance in SNGs is weird because you never lose a huge amount (>40 buy-ins) but you can run poorly for a very long time. I agree with this statement. I think this is because so much of your ROI in a batch of say, 300 SNGs, is dependent on a relatively small number of hands. Let's say over 300 SNGs you end up pushing with 4 players left with a pair against an ace 30 times. You could easily win or lose that hand 20 of the 30 times. 10 4ths instead of 10 1sts is a 50 buy-in swing, which is going to have an enormous effect on your ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way! Just when I was beginning to think that individual results in sit-n-go's were an independent identically distributed random variable... so much for those Central Limit Theorem applications I guess.

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
All stats are from playing 6 to 8 at a time, starting all at the same time and playing till all are complete before starting anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that if you stager your starts you'd have a better bubble performance and higher ITM and ROI numbers? Totally honest question. I stager mine and seem to have a better thought process on the bubble with out windows popping up everywhere, it seems to keep too many decisions piling up on top of each other. Although I play much lower buy-ins and usually only 3/4 tables at a time, so may not apply. Just wondering what your theory is to starting all at once?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the two are interchangeable

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gantlet

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn straight!

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I read this too on an old post. I wasn't around to ask, but was there a reason he only liked playing 1 table? It's clearly less profitable in $$/hr from what I can tell.


[/ QUOTE ]

He just said he didn't like multi-tasking, especially on the bubble.


[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW (not much):

Whenever I read Bozeman's posts I picture him as a purist. He always seemed to be bothered if he wasn't killing the game for the highest ROI possible. It seems plausible that part of the fun for him wasn't just the $/hr but mainly the challenge of absolute excellence. That also would seem to explain his absence -- that he didn't have enough time anymore to play at 110%.

See, this line of thinking also has the added benefit of viewing his posts as even more profound and exciting to study (especially since many are so %@$#@#% math heavy), /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Yugoslav

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Just wondering what your theory is to starting all at once?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is that you start with 8 tables and usually don't make the bubble in all 8. That way, as decisions become more critical and more frequent, you have fewer tables still open to deal with.

If you stagger start, you will almost always have 6-8 tables running when you are in the money in your first one. I don't think that's the way to go.

At least, that's why I start 8 at once and play until they are all done.

Irieguy

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Just wondering what your theory is to starting all at once?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can also be quite nice to take a few minutes to get a drink and/or grab a bite to eat. The added bonus is that this brief break gets your mind right for the next set. I also think that there is much to be said for setting aside these few minutes for a psychological self-diagnostic: making sure you're playing/concentrating 100% and/or preventing/avoiding tilt/mini-tilt.

Yugoslav

PS Tried my hand at 8-tabling for the first time last night (only tried 4 at once previously) and ended up with 6 tables all at least 5-handed on levels 4-6 at one point. Let's just say that I have *no idea* what actually happened in the 3rd quarter of the Denver/Portland game last night, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[Amid Cent]

There was post late last year about "Throwing away the spreadsheet" and ignoring ROI and ITM. See if you can find and reread that one.

I was tearing up the the 20's and 30's for two solid months and my stats looked rosy. Then I hit the inevitable downward trend. After that, I felt I was more worried about my percentages than my bankroll. Remember, making money is the ultimate goal, you can't cash out your stats, no matter how good they are.

[Vetstadium]

Great answer as long as your ROI is positive why complain? I hate streaks when I hit a block of 100 and it is a negative ROI but in the long run doesn' happen that often. I will sit there and think damn I only had ROI of 7% this 100 tourns, well it could have been -15% with some bad coin flips. I enjoy the game of poker but do not do it for a living so I am happy with a any positive ROI.

[lacky]

as they said, by the time it gets busy the number of tables is generally decreasing /images/graemlins/frown.gif

the break is my biggest reason. from limit play I know that my play drops off after a prolonged period with no breaks. that 5 or 10 mins. makes a huge difference in my play. Also there is a natural progression to play that I like in sng's. they start off slow and playing conservative, then move to bubble play, then in the money and headsup (hopefully), then your done. If you stagger them you lose that. Also the stratagies is very different for the different levels, so having 3 level 1's, 2 level 3's, 1 level 5 and one level 6 going on at the same time would be more confusing.

[ QUOTE ]
I stager mine and seem to have a better thought process on the bubble with out windows popping up everywhere, it seems to keep too many decisions piling up on top of each other

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement indicates to me that you are playing on a monitor that doesn't fit the 4 tables with no overlap. If that is the case getting a monitor that will support 1200 x 1600 resolution makes a huge difference (you can get a 19" CRT for under $200). Playing 6 tables with no overlap on 2 monitors is much easier than playing 4 on a monitor with overlap.

Steve

[stupidsucker]

If someday I became the greatest most gifted poker player of all time and had nothing more to learn I would still read 2+2 for the mental support. (Oh and to brag too)

Everyone hold hands and shed a tear.

-"We're better then you, and we know it!"

[Bigwig]

I've got 1100 $30's at this point. ROI is 25%, but the last 450 have been almost 30%.

I guess that means no.

[lacky]

wow, you completely lost me. I reread to make sure, but unless saying I have 2 monitors is braging I can figure out what your talking about???

Steve

[Irieguy]

I think you misunderstood, Lacky. He was just singing the 2+2 mantra.

Irieguy

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, you completely lost me. I reread to make sure, but unless saying I have 2 monitors is braging I can figure out what your talking about???

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry my sense of humor is vague and often not identified with among others...

[ QUOTE ]
If someday I became the greatest most gifted poker player of all time and had nothing more to learn I would still read 2+2 for the mental support. (Oh and to brag too)

Everyone hold hands and shed a tear.

-"We're better then you, and we know it!"


[/ QUOTE ]

I was being over emotional stating the importance of 2+2 support during bad streaks etc...Then I mock myself for being over emotional with the sarcastic handholdingtearshedingpowwow.

Then I end with a Quote from Dodgeball.

It was never intended to be directed at anyone.

[SuitedSixes]

What I like about starting them all at once (in my case, 4) is that if you finish OTM in two or three of them, you usually have one to play alone that you can really concentrate on to save your session.

[lacky]

I think I've been away in limit land to long.....

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]

At least, that's why I start 8 at once and play until they are all done.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one reason I made that thread about avg sng length (35 mins so far for me). I'm averaging pretty close to 7 sngs an hour 4tabling. I don't stagger and start a new sng as soon as one finishes. In theory I should actually manage more per hour since my results have been very favourable so far (lots of 1st/2nd). If my longterm average truly is around 35mins, then adding a 5th table would net me a similiar turnover to 8tabling. I'd think this would be easier than 8tabling as well.

It'd be nice to hear what avg other $33ers have.

[Mr_J]

"I stager mine and seem to have a better thought process on the bubble with out windows popping up everywhere, it seems to keep too many decisions piling up on top of each other."

I think this is due to your setup and not your skills. Windows popping up gives me the impression that you are using a monitor with less than 1600x1200 res. Much easier to multitable with 1600x1200.

I was having trouble with 3 at a time on my laptop (can really only fit 1 on screen without HUGE overlapping). Bought a Dell LCD and 4tabling is a breeze.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

No way! Just when I was beginning to think that individual results in sit-n-go's were an independent identically distributed random variable... so much for those Central Limit Theorem applications I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get out a sheet of paper. Make an x-axis and a y-axis. Start making some dots on this graph, evenly spaced along the x-axis, and normally distributed about y=0. This is your bankroll fluctuation about a mean earn rate. Make it all nice and pretty, like in your textbook when it shows what a random variable looks like. You can even draw that nice Gaussian curve along the y-axis, if you want.

Now, if you exchange two points on this data set, the distribution doesn't change, does it? Of course not, you can swap data left/right all you want and it doesn't change the distribution. It's still the same data, it just happened at a different point in time. The normal distribution doesn't care when things happened, only the frequency with which they happened.

Ok, so start shuffling the points above y=0 together and start shuffling the points below y=0 together. Still a normal distribution? Yep, exactly the same as before, right? Right. Does this distribution now show longer winning and losing streaks? Yep, just as they're talking about here.

Strike two.

eastbay

[The Yugoslavian]

Eastbay:

Please don't ever, ever, ever let me get into any sort of math-type argument with you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yugoslav

[AleoMagus]

I think I have been subtly trying to hint at this for a while now...

30% ROI is not merely OK, it is very very very good.

If this was not the case, every odd nutball on here would not be bragging about his 50% ROI, he'd be bragging about his 100% ROI.

This is because people who find themselves 2 or three standard deviations to the right after 100 or 200 tourneys come here and talk about it. I know because I used to be one of them! In my first week here I made a post about my 55% ITM and 50% ROI.

Well, thousands of tourneys later, and many good and bad streaks later, and most tourneys now played 4 at a time, My ROI is somewhere around 22.5%

When I last played only one table at a time for a significant stretch, it was $22 tourneys and I only ever played in the evenings and I found myself over 40% after a couple hundred. I thought I was god.

Playing during the day, and quad tabling 20+2 & 30+3, I think 20% is now a very worthwhile goal and shows a considerable degree of skill.

Of course you should take that for what it is worth, as I may be biased in wanting to think of myself as having a considerbale degree of skill.

I have no doubt there will be many with different and amazingly more positive experinces. I would remind them of your very important qualifier:

[ QUOTE ]
I have 2k tourneys to prove it???

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, I suspect not many remain

Regards
Brad S

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
55% ITM and 50% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd recommend quitting your job with these awesome stats and play $215s full time. Carpe diem!

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yugoslav

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No way! Just when I was beginning to think that individual results in sit-n-go's were an independent identically distributed random variable... so much for those Central Limit Theorem applications I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get out a sheet of paper. Make an x-axis and a y-axis. Start making some dots on this graph, evenly spaced along the x-axis, and normally distributed about y=0. This is your bankroll fluctuation about a mean earn rate. Make it all nice and pretty, like in your textbook when it shows what a random variable looks like. You can even draw that nice Gaussian curve along the y-axis, if you want.

Now, if you exchange two points on this data set, the distribution doesn't change, does it? Of course not, you can swap data left/right all you want and it doesn't change the distribution. It's still the same data, it just happened at a different point in time. The normal distribution doesn't care when things happened, only the frequency with which they happened.

Ok, so start shuffling the points above y=0 together and start shuffling the points below y=0 together. Still a normal distribution? Yep, exactly the same as before, right? Right. Does this distribution now show longer winning and losing streaks? Yep, just as they're talking about here.

Strike two.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

All fine and dandy. But the randomness isn't really the issue. Let's read Irie's post again, I'll even cut it down and italicize my point for you.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is because so much of your ROI in a batch of say, 300 SNGs, is dependent on a relatively small number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

And let's look at the Central Limit Theorem that we like to use as the theoretical basis for using sng results in statistical analysis calculations.

[ QUOTE ]
Let X1,X2,...,Xn be a set of N independent random variates and each have an arbitrary probability distribution with mean and a finite variance . Then the normal form variate
has a limiting cumulative distribution function which approaches a normal distribution.



[/ QUOTE ]

Randomness is not the only requirement for the central limit theorem to be used. Independence in the observations is another. "Dependent on the outcome of a small number of hands" is just one example... dependent on who's at the table... dependent on who's sitting to your left... dependent on were you as good a player 500 sng's ago as you are now... dependent on that damn river... need I go on?

If the two points you want me to exchange in your example are each dependent on the specific conditions of the data extraction for only that one specific data point and no others, they can not be exchanged arbitrarily.

Refute this post before you try to declare strike three.

Bishop to Q3, check!

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let X1,X2,...,Xn be a set of N independent random variates and each have an arbitrary probability distribution with mean and a finite variance . Then the normal form variate
has a limiting cumulative distribution function which approaches a normal distribution.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Randomness is not the only requirement for the central limit theorem to be used. Independence in the observations is another. "Dependent on the outcome of a small number of hands" is just one example... dependent on who's at the table... dependent on who's sitting to your left... dependent on were you as good a player 500 sng's ago as you are now... dependent on that damn river... need I go on?

If the two points you want me to exchange in your example are each dependent on the specific conditions of the data extraction for only that one specific data point and no others, they can not be exchanged arbitrarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness. Here we go hijacking another thread with this stuff...

The examples of dependence that you are speaking of are internal factors to a single SNG. The independence required by CLT is the independence of one item of data from another (or, independence of one SNG result from another).

So, it matters little that the results of a whole SNG may be dependent on a single hand. What matters is that the results of many different SNGs are not all dependent on each other. As I've said before, I do actually believe this to be the case but not to such a large degree as to really affect the confidence calculations much, especially as we look at bigger samples and make confidence calculations about longer term future samples.

Your examples of 'dependence'...

[ QUOTE ]
Dependent on the outcome of a small number of hands" is just one example... dependent on who's at the table... dependent on who's sitting to your left...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are really bad.

[ QUOTE ]
dependent on that damn river... need I go on?



[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm.... Yes I think so, but probably best that we don't here. Maybe ressurect that other thread or start a new one. Now that I think about it, didn't you previously declare never to comment on this topic again?

Regards
Brad S

PS - I know I'm the last person who should criticize anyone for hijacking threads, but I'm really trying to turn over a new leaf, so forgive my hypocracy (and my bad spelling).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

All fine and dandy. But the randomness isn't really the issue. Let's read Irie's post again, I'll even cut it down and italicize my point for you.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is because so much of your ROI in a batch of say, 300 SNGs, is dependent on a relatively small number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

And let's look at the Central Limit Theorem that we like to use as the theoretical basis for using sng results in statistical analysis calculations.

[ QUOTE ]
Let X1,X2,...,Xn be a set of N independent random variates and each have an arbitrary probability distribution with mean and a finite variance . Then the normal form variate
has a limiting cumulative distribution function which approaches a normal distribution.



[/ QUOTE ]

Randomness is not the only requirement for the central limit theorem to be used. Independence in the observations is another. "Dependent on the outcome of a small number of hands" is just one example... dependent on who's at the table... dependent on who's sitting to your left... dependent on were you as good a player 500 sng's ago as you are now... dependent on that damn river... need I go on?

If the two points you want me to exchange in your example are each dependent on the specific conditions of the data extraction for only that one specific data point and no others, they can not be exchanged arbitrarily.

Refute this post before you try to declare strike three.

Bishop to Q3, check!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confused by two separate and different uses of the words "dependent" or "independent."

Irie's point that a small number of hands makes the difference is completely orthogonal to the issue of independence of observations you quoted from CLT.

eastbay

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
My goodness. Here we go hijacking another thread with this stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the hijack, but Strike Two was declared so I needed to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
The examples of dependence that you are speaking of are internal factors to a single SNG. The independence required by CLT is the independence of one item of data from another (or, independence of one SNG result from another).


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. There have been many better examples that sng's are dependent of each other from just yesterday in this thread alone, but I used Irieguy's statement to make my point simply because he is well respected as he should be and his statement so clearly makes the point. Anyway, I'll use a few quotes from just yesterday and you tell me if individual sng results have any dependency on each other. Remember, that if they do, you can not use the Central Limit Theorem because it REQUIRES the independence of one data item from another.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that if you stager your starts you'd have a better bubble performance and higher ITM and ROI numbers? Totally honest question. I stager mine and seem to have a better thought process on the bubble with out windows popping up everywhere, it seems to keep too many decisions piling up on top of each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is that you start with 8 tables and usually don't make the bubble in all 8. That way, as decisions become more critical and more frequent, you have fewer tables still open to deal with.

If you stagger start, you will almost always have 6-8 tables running when you are in the money in your first one. I don't think that's the way to go.

At least, that's why I start 8 at once and play until they are all done.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What I like about starting them all at once (in my case, 4) is that if you finish OTM in two or three of them, you usually have one to play alone that you can really concentrate on to save your session.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, thousands of tourneys later, and many good and bad streaks later, and most tourneys now played 4 at a time, My ROI is somewhere around 22.5%

When I last played only one table at a time for a significant stretch, it was $22 tourneys and I only ever played in the evenings and I found myself over 40% after a couple hundred. I thought I was god.

Playing during the day, and quad tabling 20+2 & 30+3, I think 20% is now a very worthwhile goal and shows a considerable degree of skill.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Come to think of it, the biggest credible claim of ROI ever on these forums that I remember was Bozeman's who claimed 50% at $55. He also said he preferred to play only one table at a time, if I remember correctly.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I went through a stretch of about 1k where I had near 40% at 55, but this was mostly 2-tabling.

Ever since I have been 4-8 tabling, I have not been able to duplicate this.

My numbers are now more in the 25% range at $55. I also admit to losing a lot of interest in really focusing on the games, and am content lately to 4-table while watching TV, paying the bills, emailing, or forum surfing. Maybe I could reach 30% while 4-tabling if I payed more attention, but that's just coulda-shoulda-woulda talk.

So, to answer your question: 2-tabling? Yes. 4+-tabling? No.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My goodness. Here we go hijacking another thread with this stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the hijack, but Strike Two was declared so I needed to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
The examples of dependence that you are speaking of are internal factors to a single SNG. The independence required by CLT is the independence of one item of data from another (or, independence of one SNG result from another).


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. There have been many better examples that sng's are dependent of each other from just yesterday in this thread alone, but I used Irieguy's statement to make my point simply because he is well respected as he should be and his statement so clearly makes the point. Anyway, I'll use a few quotes from just yesterday and you tell me if individual sng results have any dependency on each other. Remember, that if they do, you can not use the Central Limit Theorem because it REQUIRES the independence of one data item from another.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that if you stager your starts you'd have a better bubble performance and higher ITM and ROI numbers? Totally honest question. I stager mine and seem to have a better thought process on the bubble with out windows popping up everywhere, it seems to keep too many decisions piling up on top of each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is that you start with 8 tables and usually don't make the bubble in all 8. That way, as decisions become more critical and more frequent, you have fewer tables still open to deal with.

If you stagger start, you will almost always have 6-8 tables running when you are in the money in your first one. I don't think that's the way to go.

At least, that's why I start 8 at once and play until they are all done.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What I like about starting them all at once (in my case, 4) is that if you finish OTM in two or three of them, you usually have one to play alone that you can really concentrate on to save your session.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, thousands of tourneys later, and many good and bad streaks later, and most tourneys now played 4 at a time, My ROI is somewhere around 22.5%

When I last played only one table at a time for a significant stretch, it was $22 tourneys and I only ever played in the evenings and I found myself over 40% after a couple hundred. I thought I was god.

Playing during the day, and quad tabling 20+2 & 30+3, I think 20% is now a very worthwhile goal and shows a considerable degree of skill.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Come to think of it, the biggest credible claim of ROI ever on these forums that I remember was Bozeman's who claimed 50% at $55. He also said he preferred to play only one table at a time, if I remember correctly.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I went through a stretch of about 1k where I had near 40% at 55, but this was mostly 2-tabling.

Ever since I have been 4-8 tabling, I have not been able to duplicate this.

My numbers are now more in the 25% range at $55. I also admit to losing a lot of interest in really focusing on the games, and am content lately to 4-table while watching TV, paying the bills, emailing, or forum surfing. Maybe I could reach 30% while 4-tabling if I payed more attention, but that's just coulda-shoulda-woulda talk.

So, to answer your question: 2-tabling? Yes. 4+-tabling? No.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of your examples are terrible and having absolutely nothing to do with independence. However...

We have already acknowledged in detail how SnG results are not fully independent. Your opponents may learn about you in a prior game, or vice versa. There are many things you can identify as potentially introducing some degree of dependence.

However, this is true for just about any real-world application of a statistical model. I think your example in your original rant was about random deviations in manufacturing processes. This also has analogous problems. Let's say in a milling process there is some likelihood that a part may fracture and produce an outlier in resulting dimensions. Well, it may be that such fracturing puts stress on the tool which changes the way the tool sits in the machine, which then subsequently changes the results from there on. That's a dependence between data points. Reality isn't always perfectly tidy, and idealized models are simply that: idealized.

The question is always: does the model match well enough to produce predictions which are acceptable? And the fact of the matter is, that anyone who has looked at bankroll fluctuations in SnGs about a mean rate have seen that the data is normally distributed to a very good approximation. Try it yourself with your own data. And once you've determined that your data is normally distributed, all of the results that apply to normally distributed variables are applicable.

eastbay

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]


The question is always: does the model match well enough to produce predictions which are acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eastbay, good point as always.

Since we both have physics background, I cannot agree with this more. There is always breakdowns if you look at more closely the underlying assumption like Newton's law vs. General relativity, but unless you study particles travelling with speed of light Newton's lay is still pretty good assumption.

I know normal assumption is always overused in statistics but there is a reason for that.

[AA suited]

back to the topic:

anyone know what Zim's and Gig's ITM/ROI is?

and i'm now in a -20 SnG swing at 50+5 now. there's goes my 36% ROI /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
back to the topic:

anyone know what Zim's and Gig's ITM/ROI is?

and i'm now in a -20 SnG swing at 50+5 now. there's goes my 36% ROI /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

in my thread of how old are you giga says he is 18% at 10000 $200 and 13% at 1300 step 5. Who is zim?

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
We have already acknowledged in detail how SnG results are not fully independent. Your opponents may learn about you in a prior game, or vice versa. There are many things you can identify as potentially introducing some degree of dependence.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK then. Why didn't you just come out and say that. If you concede that the core assumptions are not valid, but want to use the theory anyway because it tends to look good, I can't argue with that and will not bother trying.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

OK then. Why didn't you just come out and say that. If you concede that the core assumptions are not valid, but want to use the theory anyway because it tends to look good, I can't argue with that and will not bother trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we just went over this a few days ago: it tends to look good (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=161 6869&Forum=,,f22,,&Words=%2Bconfidence%20%2Binterv al&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Main=1616808&Search=true& where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newerty pe=m&olderval=2&oldertype=d&bodyprev=#Post1616869)

Your points are valid. Eastbay and Aleo are right. And Aleo showed why already.

Irieguy

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is due to your setup and not your skills. Windows popping up gives me the impression that you are using a monitor with less than 1600x1200 res. Much easier to multitable with 1600x1200.

I was having trouble with 3 at a time on my laptop (can really only fit 1 on screen without HUGE overlapping). Bought a Dell LCD and 4tabling is a breeze.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta figure out how to talk my wife in to letting me buy a bigger monitor...i forget that not everyone sees what i see when they look at their computers.

[wmajik]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I playing crappy? It's possible, but I don't feel like I am. When I review my histries nothing jumps out as really bad (as long as I remember to take my meds anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my opinion is that the games have simply gotten tougher over time, with the last few months in particular. I've only got guesses as to why, but they have. On my site's forum, the same sentiment has been echoed of dropping ROIs and far more opponents being around in the later levels now.

Not all that long ago, it was pretty normal to hit level 4 with 5 or less people remaining in the $50 game. Now it's quite commonn to see 8 people still in by the time level 4 rolls around. With that many people in late game, you are really limited to a shove game for the most part, where your edges become quite slim.

I don't think it's out of the question to think that the overall skill in the STT games has risen over time. The STT forumla is easy enough that even a habitual losing player could emulate basic habits from winning players and significantly improve his game.

So, while I don't regard STTs as dead by any means, I do think ROIs will continue to drop in the future. Unlike ring games, I think the STT game has a more difficult time sustaining losing players, especially at the higher limits.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I playing crappy? It's possible, but I don't feel like I am. When I review my histries nothing jumps out as really bad (as long as I remember to take my meds anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my opinion is that the games have simply gotten tougher over time, with the last few months in particular. I've only got guesses as to why, but they have. On my site's forum, the same sentiment has been echoed of dropping ROIs and far more opponents being around in the later levels now.

Not all that long ago, it was pretty normal to hit level 4 with 5 or less people remaining in the $50 game. Now it's quite commonn to see 8 people still in by the time level 4 rolls around. With that many people in late game, you are really limited to a shove game for the most part, where your edges become quite slim.

I don't think it's out of the question to think that the overall skill in the STT games has risen over time. The STT forumla is easy enough that even a habitual losing player could emulate basic habits from winning players and significantly improve his game.

So, while I don't regard STTs as dead by any means, I do think ROIs will continue to drop in the future. Unlike ring games, I think the STT game has a more difficult time sustaining losing players, especially at the higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way, but I can't think of an explanation for it. What is different now than a year ago?

If anything, I'd think the increasing poker craze would make the games easier. Maybe books and strategy online has become too easy to come by? Or people are actually learning from watching WPT??

I'm stumped really.

-Jman28

[AA suited]

oh..here's a formula for autocorrelation. It be used for the following two purposes:

To detect non-randomness in data.
To identify an appropriate time series model if the data are not random.

It even factors in LAG.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35c.htm

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ship_it_tome]

im standing up after several posts of this crap i here, my roi in the 55s is 38% over 1700 tourneys. If i remember correctly gigs was close to 47% after 1k of them

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

Aleo needs to design a spreadsheet that automatically records your finishes, but will not display your ROI until you've played 2500 SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I record my results in a plain old Word document. Not obsessing over utterly meaningless day-to-day ROI swings is a huge uphill battle for me, and this little trick helps me a little.

[SuitedSixes]

For me, obsessing over ROI is as much a part of poker as posting the big blind. I wouldn't know how to play without it.

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
im standing up after several posts of this crap i here, my roi in the 55s is 38% over 1700 tourneys. If i remember correctly gigs was close to 47% after 1k of them


[/ QUOTE ]

When? Playing how many at a time?

See people used to brag about 40% roi all the time, but I havent heard it in a long time. 1700 is a good sample size for a decent roi calc, but still not enough to be even close to perfect. I do not think the 50s are beatable for 38% anymore sustained.


As for the games being tight right now.... they will get a little better in a few months. A lot of fish are dead broke right now. The holidays are freshly over and tax incom returns are OTW within the next few months! weeeeee. Right now the game is filled with some fish that had a good december winning a few tournyes feeling like a pro. I expected January to be a little rough. It sure seemed like the people didnt go anywhere, but I promise that some did, we just got a lot of new people to replace the old..... Some new will leave, but some old crew will return, and I boldy predict great games come mid April. By the end of this year will will have seen 100k online at once at party poker.

If I thought it could be done with no cheating(as in fabricated results) I would wager anyone(even gigabet) that they cant get over a 35% roi at the 50s over a 2k trial right now(4tabling). I am not a gambling man, after all I do play poker.