View Full Version : ROI Is Over Rated
MagnoliasFM
03-03-2005, 05:01 AM
I don't understand why people put such a high emphasis on ROI. Let me tell you this much: If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
You could theoretically one-table and play an extremely cautious style and achieve your theoretical max. ROI. Then you could post it on here and get oohs and aahhhs and everyone will think you're a great player.
Or, you could 8-table and take more risks and get about half the ROI but make tons more money.
As an extreme example, I would rather have 25% ROI and an hourly rate of $100/hour than 70% ROI and an hourly rate of $99.99/hour.
The reason why I am posting this is because most people tend to neglect the "time" factor in SNGs. They simply look at their results and judge based on ROI and ITM. If you take time into account, you start to make more profitable decisions that might have a negative effect on your ROI. The real measure of a player's success is not his ROI and ITM, but his hourly rate. Don't fall in love with your ROI, and don't be afraid to lower it in order to make more money.
Sorry if I wasted your time reading this if it is obvious to you.
curtains
03-03-2005, 05:07 AM
I think you are wrong. I'd rather have a 50% ROI at the $11 sit and gos, as opposed to a 15% ROI at the $215's.
lorinda
03-03-2005, 05:08 AM
You are forgetting to factor in that a high ROI leads to a low ROR enabling you to safely play for bigger stakes.
The equation is not a simple one.
Lori
Pepsquad
03-03-2005, 05:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people put such a high emphasis on ROI. Let me tell you this much: If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
You could theoretically one-table and play an extremely cautious style and achieve your theoretical max. ROI. Then you could post it on here and get oohs and aahhhs and everyone will think you're a great player.
Or, you could 8-table and take more risks and get about half the ROI but make tons more money.
As an extreme example, I would rather have 25% ROI and an hourly rate of $100/hour than 70% ROI and an hourly rate of $99.99/hour.
The reason why I am posting this is because most people tend to neglect the "time" factor in SNGs. They simply look at their results and judge based on ROI and ITM. If you take time into account, you start to make more profitable decisions that might have a negative effect on your ROI. The real measure of a player's success is not his ROI and ITM, but his hourly rate. Don't fall in love with your ROI, and don't be afraid to lower it in order to make more money.
Sorry if I wasted your time reading this if it is obvious to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is very good advice for all players with at least 1,000 SNG's experience at their current level. For those new to SNG's/still picking up the nuances of a certain level - do yourself a favor and disregard. %ROI is what matters.
Was probably being overzealous with the "1,000" mark - but definitely at least 500.
Seadood228
03-03-2005, 05:11 AM
Also, if you are multi tabling, there is very little you can do about the length of a SNG. So theoretically, maximizing your ROI is a crucial part of maximizing your earn.
I'd assume that multitabling is a given for most of the players here.
Seadood228/Gambooln
curtains
03-03-2005, 05:13 AM
btw I was joking earlier, but I think ROI is very important for almost everyone, as it tells you whether or not you are winning player.
Anyone who is winning a lot at poker is probably smart enough to understand that it's better to play 4 games at once with a 10% ROI than it is to play 1 game at a time with a 15% ROI.
Seadood228
03-03-2005, 05:17 AM
exactly.. I kind of figured multi-tabling was a given in these ROI calcs.
ROI is NOT overrated. Obsessing about it is /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
btw I was joking earlier,
[/ QUOTE ]
my sarcasm meter needs new batteries. i was about to call you dumb. but you're not. i am.
SuitedSixes
03-03-2005, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As an extreme example, I would rather have 25% ROI and an hourly rate of $100/hour than 70% ROI and an hourly rate of $99.99/hour.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm, no you wouldn't. I would take the 70% ROI and give up $.01 per hour. Do you see why?
johnnybeef
03-03-2005, 07:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an extreme example, I would rather have 25% ROI and an hourly rate of $100/hour than 70% ROI and an hourly rate of $99.99/hour.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm, no you wouldn't. I would take the 70% ROI and give up $.01 per hour. Do you see why?
[/ QUOTE ]
less varience beeatch!
And it would also mean you're a better player. As you get better, you move up to bigger games and even more $/h.
jcm4ccc
03-03-2005, 10:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFIT in the short run, then 8-tabling is a good idea.
My goal is to MAXIMIZE MY PROFIT in the long run. I used to 4-table. I am now 1-tabling. I believe this decision is the best for me at my level of experience, and will lead to greater profits over the course of my career.
Different strokes . . .
apd138
03-03-2005, 12:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFIT in the short run, then 8-tabling is a good idea.
My goal is to MAXIMIZE MY PROFIT in the long run. I used to 4-table. I am now 1-tabling. I believe this decision is the best for me at my level of experience, and will lead to greater profits over the course of my career.
Different strokes . . .
[/ QUOTE ] Could you elaborate?
poboys
03-03-2005, 12:27 PM
I think it's a good point that the real goal of SnGs is to maximize your $/hr. However, putting on my captain obvious cape here, ROI is a good comparative measure for 2+2'ers. Since some players 2-table, 4-table; some play low states some high stakes, ROI is a good number to gauge how one is performing. (Cape still on) ITM is a good proxy for standard deviation as well.
Clearly, max($/hr) is the goal, and there are lots of other interresting metrics that provide insight.
All that being said, I'm interrested if you could provide an example of how you focus on $/hr while playing. Do you advocate taking early risks, getting in marginal situations to double-up? What decisions do you make/consider such that you max($/hr)?
Scuba Chuck
03-03-2005, 12:35 PM
Magnolia, the contrarian rants continue...
I'm sure most of the posters agree in principal to your statement, but not to the extreme by which you take it.
Your statement has absolute truth at one point in time. But time is a series of points, and in this long line of points, learning to maximize ROI can lead to other important factors like multi-tabling and more importantly playing higher limits, which in full circle brings us back again to an even higher $/hr.
My advice is, don't get stuck in one point in time. Like when I go to the malls in smaller cities. All the women still have leg warmers, and big hair. The men have their sweat shirts tucked into their sweat pants. Does anyone remember this era?
murfnyc
03-03-2005, 12:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFIT in the short run, then 8-tabling is a good idea.
My goal is to MAXIMIZE MY PROFIT in the long run. I used to 4-table. I am now 1-tabling. I believe this decision is the best for me at my level of experience, and will lead to greater profits over the course of my career.
Different strokes . . .
[/ QUOTE ] Could you elaborate?
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. Right now in my poker career I only play 2 tables at once. I am more interested in properly analyzing situations and being confident I am making +EV decisions. As I become more experienced and these decisions become more and more obvious, then I will start to multi-table. But until then, I would rather give up some $/hr now to improve my game for a higher $/hr later.
I hope this makes sense.
Voltron87
03-03-2005, 01:09 PM
The amount of time you gain from finishing early is not likely to be worth more than the buy in you lose. When you try to push edges early you will lose more often. The 30 minutes or whatever you gain is not worth as much as a buy in.
Mr_Gordon
03-03-2005, 01:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of time you gain from finishing early is not likely to be worth more than the buy in you lose. When you try to push edges early you will lose more often. The 30 minutes or whatever you gain is not worth as much as a buy in.
[/ QUOTE ]
bingo!
Skip Brutale
03-03-2005, 01:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people put such a high emphasis on ROI. Let me tell you this much: If your ROI is as high as it possibly can be, YOU ARE NOT MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFIT. The only thing you should be concerned about maximizing is your hourly rate, and not your ROI.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you are simply jealous of my 47% ROI in the 50's.
UMTerp
03-03-2005, 01:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of time you gain from finishing early is not likely to be worth more than the buy in you lose. When you try to push edges early you will lose more often. The 30 minutes or whatever you gain is not worth as much as a buy in.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not losing a buy-in though. You're only losing a fraction of a buy-in (theoretically) if you take a 47-53 shot. For the most part, I completely agree with Magnolia's idea here, though he seems to be taking it to an extreme.
I remember posting something similar a few months ago (along the lines of "Why not just go all-in every single time you get AK early in an $11 or $22?"). Some people agreed, others thought it was too reckless. I still think it's a profitable play (hourly-wise) at those levels.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of time you gain from finishing early is not likely to be worth more than the buy in you lose. When you try to push edges early you will lose more often. The 30 minutes or whatever you gain is not worth as much as a buy in.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not losing a buy-in though. You're only losing a fraction of a buy-in (theoretically) if you take a 47-53 shot. For the most part, I completely agree with Magnolia's idea here, though he seems to be taking it to an extreme.
I remember posting something similar a few months ago (along the lines of "Why not just go all-in every single time you get AK early in an $11 or $22?"). Some people agreed, others thought it was too reckless. I still think it's a profitable play (hourly-wise) at those levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
But say you do that, often no one will call and you will steal15 chips in blinds with your AK. Sure once in a while someone will call with AQ but the 10s are not always filled with someone who will call an all in early.
Voltron87
03-03-2005, 01:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of time you gain from finishing early is not likely to be worth more than the buy in you lose. When you try to push edges early you will lose more often. The 30 minutes or whatever you gain is not worth as much as a buy in.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not losing a buy-in though. You're only losing a fraction of a buy-in (theoretically) if you take a 47-53 shot. For the most part, I completely agree with Magnolia's idea here, though he seems to be taking it to an extreme.
I remember posting something similar a few months ago (along the lines of "Why not just go all-in every single time you get AK early in an $11 or $22?"). Some people agreed, others thought it was too reckless. I still think it's a profitable play (hourly-wise) at those levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, we're talking about 50 50s to double up. I do not think a 1600 chip stack is more than twice as valuable than a 800 chip stack. That's the problem with his argument.
The Yugoslavian
03-03-2005, 01:46 PM
This is perhaps all well and good if you *know* your ROI. The problem is, given the small sample sizes we all have not only is talk about our true ROI difficult but as soon as you add tables you won't really know what it's actually doing to your ROI. The one thing you do know is that your ROI will go down. So, you also know your variance will go up. This will provide for an increase in psychological headaches. And you still don't know if you've increased your $/hr.
If by going over 8tabling HHs you can determine that you're playing close to your play 4tabling, then sure, go for it. I think many players would find fairly sizable poor decisions in critical situations though.
Yugoslav
nokona13
03-03-2005, 03:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My advice is, don't get stuck in one point in time. Like when I go to the malls in smaller cities. All the women still have leg warmers, and big hair. The men have their sweat shirts tucked into their sweat pants. Does anyone remember this era?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the funniest thing I've read on this forum in days...
SuitedSixes
03-03-2005, 04:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is perhaps all well and good if you *know* your ROI. The problem is, given the small sample sizes we all have not only is talk about our true ROI difficult but as soon as you add tables you won't really know what it's actually doing to your ROI. The one thing you do know is that your ROI will go down. So, you also know your variance will go up. This will provide for an increase in psychological headaches. And you still don't know if you've increased your $/hr.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, for a losing player, you make lots (lots again, to emphasize) of good posts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Have you ever thought about paying people to have you coach them?
Scuba Chuck
03-03-2005, 04:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know, for a losing player, you make lots (lots again, to emphasize) of good posts.
Have you ever thought about paying people to have you coach them?
[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't have ROI objectives, he has Pooh-bah objectives.
SuitedSixes
03-03-2005, 04:47 PM
He won't make it if his keyboard gets repo-ed.
curtains
03-03-2005, 04:56 PM
Well this whole thread is so obvious, its basically telling us that the idea of poker is to make as much money as possible.
ROI actually is very important, because it's an objective measure that tells you whether or not you are a likely a winner at the game you regularly play. Also some people may not worry about squeezing every little penny out of their profits now, but instead about improving their game and advancing to a higher level of play.
poboys
03-03-2005, 05:25 PM
Agreed, well summarized. And since no one gives a concrete example of how a Player focuses on ROI rather than EarnRate in a game, this thread is turning into post count padding material.
jcm4ccc
03-03-2005, 05:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, well summarized. And since no one gives a concrete example of how a Player focuses on ROI rather than EarnRate in a game, this thread is turning into post count padding material.
[/ QUOTE ]
Post #29
71 to go for the flame.
The Yugoslavian
03-03-2005, 06:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know, for a losing player, you make lots (lots again, to emphasize) of good posts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Darn, and here I was aspiring to become the TSC of this forum. But if my posts are good, then that can't happen, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever thought about paying people to have you coach them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm. This is tempting but then I'd be losing even more $$ and time playing poker, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
Yugoslav
The Yugoslavian
03-03-2005, 06:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't have ROI objectives, he has Pooh-bah objectives.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He won't make it if his keyboard gets repo-ed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Man, I go get lunch and then do some actual work and here I'm getting shredded!
Yugoslav
(note to self: stop doing *any* work or eating lunch....2+2 rep is just too important)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.