Would this be ROI and ITM for the "average" player?

[vindikation]

Would this be ROI and ITM for the "average" player?

This is just using straight probabilities:

1st: 10%
2nd: 10%
3rd: 10%
4th: 10%
5th: 10%
6th: 10%
7th: 10%
8th: 10%
9th: 10%
10th: 10%

ITM: 30%
ROI: -10% (breaking even minus the vig)

[Apathy]

for any STT with 10% rake, yes that is what everyone's results would be if all things were equal. I don't think its all that close to the actual average though.

[JP Rocks]

What exactly are you trying to get at? What is an average player? Why am I replying to this, I dont have nearly enough forum cred to flame anyone just yet...

[DasLeben]

Interestingly enough, this topic made me look at my statistics in a little different light. Right now, I'm down $74 over my last 70 tournies playing 10+1. However, I've obviously paid $70 in tourney fees alone. This leaves me at an insignificant -$4, not counting the vig.

I don't think this really means anything, but I'm glad this showed me a different perspective.

[ChoicestHops]

That cant be average. My last 63 51's Im ROI% 33.60% and ITM 47.62%

[lorinda]

On most sites the vig is 9.09%

Lori

[Blarg]

That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[JP Rocks]

There is no such thing as an average player. The only way an average player with those stats could exist would be if everybody played exactly the same way, everybody folded AJos in early position in rounds 1-3, everybody bet and called exactly the same amount for exactly the same cards in exactly the same position, and everybody played enough sng's to average out the randomness of the cards. Dont let this average player con you into thinking you are breaking even- the rake exists and must be beaten just like the other players at the table.

Sorry, its 4.20 pm on friday afternoon here, I'll be much more pleasant in 40 minutes.

[ewing55]

I hate you. It's still Thursday here and I have another whole day until the weekend!

[JP Rocks]

Thank you for that little bit of perspective, it has put a smile on my face. Did I mention its a long weekend over here in New Zealand....

[vindikation]

This made me think more about the vig than anything else. 10% doesn't seem like much when you buy in, but in the big picture it makes quite an impact on your ROI.

A good thing about Poker Stars' bonuses is that you can play their SnG's basically for free (the money you get back is the same as the vig you pay in the tournament). Poker Room is a little worse you get $1 back in every $1.40 you pay in vig.

I'm not that great a player (~ 20% ROI over 250 SnG's) so the Bonus thing combined with solid SnG play has helped out my bankroll a lot.

[vindikation]

I obviously just used standard probability to make up the %'s for the average. Any thoughts on what the "real" ROI and ITM would be for the "average" player (whatever the hell that means).

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I obviously just used standard probability to make up the %'s for the average. Any thoughts on what the "real" ROI and ITM would be for the "average" player (whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to guess, I'd say ITM probably about 25-30% of the time, but instead of an equal distribution of 1st, 2nd's, and 3rd's, there's probably a disporportionate number of 3rd's.

[Dudd]

For the "average" player, he has to place in each position 10% of the time, and have a ROI of -10%. It's just simple math. The median player would be much more interesting, and for that, I have no clue. Poker prophecy would probably be your best bet. It's flawed, sure, but I can't think of anything better.

[Mr_J]

I'll assume you mean the typical player. Well, the good players +EV has to come from somewhere, so no the typical player will not do that well and will lose more than the rake.

If there were 2 profitable players at a $33, where the first would hit 20%ROI at this table and the second would hit 15%, and all the other players were equal, they'd only achieve about a 87% return. Worse than a slot machine.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one entirely confused by this post?

EDIT: Ah, does the site take as much for the 5s and for the 10s where you play?

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one entirely confused by this post?

EDIT: Ah, does the site take as much for the 5s and for the 10s where you play?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's probably referring to Party, where both the 5s and 10s take $1 for vig. That's why the Party $5+1s are ridiculous to play: the 20% fee.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
for any STT with 10% rake, yes that is what everyone's results would be if all things were equal. I don't think its all that close to the actual average though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too much smog down in TO I guess. Actually, it isn't close to the actual average....it IS the actual average! (as long as by average you are referring to the mean). The median result may be far from the average, but I'm pretty sure the average has to be at the average......

[Blarg]

Yes, I am. I started out in SNG's just this month, and after a long run of them I was in the red for almost the exact amount of the fees I had paid. Since the fees are $1 at both the Party 5+1's and their 10+1's, I was figuring that paying a smaller percentage in rake could effectively make me more money even if I played exactly as good/bad as before, if I just moved up to the 10's. And if the 10's weren't any harder.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I obviously just used standard probability to make up the %'s for the average. Any thoughts on what the "real" ROI and ITM would be for the "average" player (whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to guess, I'd say ITM probably about 25-30% of the time, but instead of an equal distribution of 1st, 2nd's, and 3rd's, there's probably a disporportionate number of 3rd's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was losing money at 33% ITM over more than a hundred SNG sample size because I had a very disproportionate amount of third places.

I started playing better and getting a more reasonable share of luck, and getting many more 1sts, and at about the same 33%-35% ITM, I won back in a very short time all that I lost and stepped into the black.

The distribution of prize places definitely makes a very quick difference either way. Even a handful more of first places can fairly drastically alter your profitability even over hundreds of SNG's.

[Limpn2win]

so naturally by this logic you should move up to the 200+15's.

[Patriarch]

[ QUOTE ]
so naturally by this logic you should move up to the 200+15's.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.