Party Poker 10+1s and 20+2s ROI

[maddog2030]

I know this has been discussed a billion times, but I simply can't find a good post or posts that discuss low/typical/great ROI's for these levels. I've tried the forum search and google and didn't hit much. Could anyone please post a link? Thanks.

[BradleyT]

If you're winning money that should make you happy.

[The Yugoslavian]

DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!

That is all.

Yugoslav

[astarck]

Actually, I find myself wondering this too, yet also can't find a good thread. Can anyone post a link?

[maddog2030]

I tried making the title clear so no one who hated seeing these threads would read it but I guess I failed at that. I hate my life.

I tried searching the forums myself for quite a while and came up with nothing particuarly useful. No, really, I did.

[The Yugoslavian]

Okay, I'm too lazy to go do a big searching expidition to help you here....BUT.....you're in luck that I think I was pretty out of line with the die/die/die deal....sooooooooooooooooooooo:

Blah (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1547951&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Don't spend it all in one place.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yugoslav
Hint: look for Irie's post in particular...also, please note his disclaimer...(that this info isn't necessarily worth anything...certainly not much meaningful anything anyway)...

[Blarg]

I forget, but a kinda FAQ put out by a poster named "the shadow" is the first place I turn to look things up here. Try searching by his name or something; he doesn't post much.

[dfscott]

Stop the madness!

You really don't want to know that answer to your question -- trust me.

[Phoenix1010]

The roof is said to be around 40%. 50% is believed to be unsustainable. The average for every player on party is -10%. To my knowledge, decent players get somewhere from 10% to 25%. The cream of the crop usually are 25% to 35%. No statistics are even close to useful until your sample size is at least 500, and even then it's sketchy. There you go. If I'm off on any of these, someone correct me. If anyone else asks, direct them to this post. Let us not hear of this again.

[Big Limpin']

$10+1:

Average... -9.09%
Decent...0%
Good...10%
Real Good...20%
Superb...30%
Sustainable ceiling...40%

$20+2: Same as $10+1, except a tad lower (just a tad though)

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I forget, but a kinda FAQ put out by a poster named "the shadow" is the first place I turn to look things up here. Try searching by his name or something; he doesn't post much.

[/ QUOTE ]

IT'S NOT A FAQ!!!!!!!!

It also doesn't address the issue posed in the OP.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

Pooh-bah's and Carpal Tunnel's have seen this question so many times it drives them crazy. I'm only an old hand, so I'll tell you.

Standard quote is 40% is a great great great ROI at the $11s and not much different for the $22s. That's just the standard quote. No one knows if it is accurate.

I know, I know, I know, your ROI is 68%. My advice is to use the search function to figure out how to manage a bankroll in the SNGs and move up when you have the roll. Don't bother trying to set an ROI record.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
$10+1:

Average... -9.09%
Decent...0%
Good...10%
Real Good...20%
Superb...30%
Sustainable ceiling...40%

$20+2: Same as $10+1, except a tad lower (just a tad though)

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it -9.09%? i never got that, and ive read it before.

anyway. im sure i read that stupid sucker challenged anyone to prove over 5K games at the $33 level how much they could beat the game by. the top answer being 18%, with an average of 15%.

so by my thinking, 20% at the 10s and 20s is pretty sweet. but im doubting anyone has proven this over such a figure due to the tendancy to move up.

Phill

[Big Limpin']

If you are just winning back your buyin (less vig), you are losing the vig cost, per every buy-in including vig.
$-1/$11 or $-2/$22 or $-3/$33 = -9.09090909%
(-vig) / (buyin)

[gumpzilla]

Two things:

1) 5k is a huge number of games for somebody to play with an ROI that would be greater than 20% without moving on to the next level. So who's going to be sitting around trying to prove that? Not the strongest players, most likely. I think you can probably infer that it's possible to do slightly better than that.

2) An average player will cash 3 times out of 10, with an equal distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd. You can work out that this means that the expected return on each game is -.1 buyins, the rake. - (1 / 11) = -9.09% figure that you see.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
1) 5k is a huge number of games for somebody to play with an ROI that would be greater than 20% without moving on to the next level. So who's going to be sitting around trying to prove that? Not the strongest players, most likely. I think you can probably infer that it's possible to do slightly better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i get your meaning, your saying that after a short amount of time people will move up from a level once they have the roll padded and are reasonably sure they are beating it for a good ROI.

however, the $33 level is know to have many pros inhabiting it as the low variance and ability to multitable with weaker opponants balances out the reasons to move up.

dont get me wrong, a lot wont see it this way, but thats the reasons that people do. some stop at 30s, some 50s, others simply dont and keeping moving up. but the 30s as i understand it is the lowest stop point most people pick.

-----

if you mean that 20% at 10s and 20s wont be proven over 5K games, i agree, i cant think of a reason for people to stop moving up at these levels. i tried to convey that in my orig post, i apologise if it didnt come across that way.

Phill

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
No statistics are even close to useful until your sample size is at least 500, and even then it's sketchy. There you go. If I'm off on any of these, someone correct me. If anyone else asks, direct them to this post. Let us not hear of this again.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 500, your true ROI is apparently in the boundary [x -.15, x + .15] where x is your current ROI.

[maddog2030]

Post deleted by maddog2030

[BradleyT]

You should delete this post fast.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
if i get your meaning, your saying that after a short amount of time people will move up from a level once they have the roll padded and are reasonably sure they are beating it for a good ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
however, the $33 level is know to have many pros inhabiting it as the low variance and ability to multitable with weaker opponants balances out the reasons to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not incompatible with what I said.

There can be lots of pros that eke out a 15% ROI 8-tabling the 30s. This doesn't say anything about whether people who were beating the game for 25% wouldn't move up to 50. Obviously not all of them will, but given Player A and Player B, with ROI(A) > ROI(B), player A is more likely to move up if there is a level to move up to. So, if you're looking at people who have played many thousands of games at a particular level, you're probably going to see ROI distributions that are not all that representative of what's possible or likely because the tails of the distribution are likely to have dropped off - the bad ones because they busted out before they could muster a few thousand SNGs, the excellent ones because it was clear that they had a good chance of making more money by moving up. So I think it's probably quite reasonable to think that 25% ROI or so in the 30s is excellent, difficult, but quite possibly doable.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
You should delete this post fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah. The kid wants to play poker for extra income and wanted to get some information and make some extrapolations before he jumped into it. At least he's researching and making plans beforehand. No harm done to anyone. Everyone getting on his case for asking a question should just be more selective about what threads they read. The question is in the title.

[BradleyT]

Did you see his sample size?

Anyway, for the rest of what he said it looks good. He wants to be able to have a $10/hr job and by 4 tabling the $10's that should be very easy to do. All he has to do is read here and post hands where he wasn't sure what he should do.

[maddog2030]

I tried to make it clear I was making no deductions from my performance so far. I explicitly said that I expect it to normalize VERY quickly. This is why I was asking what other' ROIs were because I knew my results were simply unrealistic. If I thought my results were realistic I would've never posted in the first place.

It seems everyone thinks I posted because I have a ridicuosly high ROI in a ridiculously small sample size. The reason I posted is exactly because my sample size is so small I cannot deduce anything from it, so I'm asking other peoples experiences at useful sample sizes. I need to make a decision in the next few weeks and simply don't have the time to build a sample size that quickly to make my decision. Others with similiar skill levels and similiar buyins sounds like a good guesstimate to me.

[Blarg]

It sounds like you are rushing things something fierce.

[maddog2030]

More or less.

Also, on a side note, Party's not the only site I've played. I played on Stars recreationally for over 6 months while reading this forum the whole time. The sample I posted was just my recent Party results since I started their SNGs the other day. They are somewhat different than Stars so I wanted numbers from those who played Party. The only reason I even posted my sample was because microbet took a decent guess at it since (I'm guessing) he thought I was just another person who thinks their ridiculous unsustainable ROI means they're God's gift to poker. Through experience, I'd say I'm just confident I'm in the average profitable player category.

I think I'm pretty conservative when it comes to what I think is realistic. Remember I said I was just looking for a 13% ROI at these things and I'd be happy. If I received replies that said 20% is easily attainable by most people who read the forum, my only thought would be "Then I'm confident I can get my 13% ROI". Extra ROI is nice, but I was clear that my only goal was to maintain at a minimum of 13%, not some ridiculous ROI that didn't relate to the rest of my post at all.

I hope that clears everything up.

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were Brad again. My deleted post related to the fact that it'll soon be summer, and if I can't get a good internship, I was looking at poker as an alternative to the normal $9/hour job around here. I calculated 4 tabling $10's I'd need around a 13% ROI to match that amount, and alls I want to do is be confident I can match a normal job by doing poker. So I need to make a decision within the next few weeks which is why I'm more or less rushing things and making guesstimates on how likely it is.

[Mr_J]

Keeping reading the forum and soon you'll be 8tabling $22s for 15%+ ROI.

What to aim for? At the $11s 35-40% and at the $22s maybe high 20s low 30s.

I gotta say my thing though: 8tabling the $22s for 20% ROI is worth $60 an hour. If you hit your 13% (and you will if you are willing to learn) that's worth more than $40. You're $10/hr goal is VERY attainable. So attainable that I think you should set your goals a little higher.

[Blarg]

I've only been playing SNG's regularly or seriously since the beginning of this last month, and over my 362 10+1's, I'm around 12%. My sample size is absurdly small, but considering that even a total newbie rank beginner can get around your goal figure for at least a little while, and more importantly that many have stated that a ROI of 20% and more is attainable at the 10's, 13% seems like a modest, attainable goal for a winning player, I would think.

The only problem really is a sample size big enough to let you know if you really are a winning player and not just on a lucky run. I'm not at that point yet myself and won't be for a good while. I'm not sure where you are in that regard, either.

I think your main concern should be bankroll management probably. It's one thing to not make any money, but quite another to hit a bad run and then not only not be bringing in money, but actually losing it. How much you have saved up should probably be a major focal point of your decision.

That would be all the more important if you don't have the numbers to tell you if you're really just on the positive side of variance.

[maddog2030]

That's good to know. Right now I'm just breaking into 4 tabling. All my previous experience has been 1-2 tabling. 3 tabling I have little problem with, but 4 tabling still has a lot going on for me. Less than 4 tables I tend to I have no problem focussing on the behavior of the players, but 4 tabling feels like I hit the bubble and don't know who's willing to give up their blinds. So much goes on that I feel like I go into robot mode and don't really extract information from the plays that are in front of my face.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping reading the forum and soon you'll be 8tabling $22s for 15%+ ROI.

What to aim for? At the $11s 35-40% and at the $22s maybe high 20s low 30s.

I gotta say my thing though: 8tabling the $22s for 20% ROI is worth $60 an hour. If you hit your 13% (and you will if you are willing to learn) that's worth more than $40. You're $10/hr goal is VERY attainable. So attainable that I think you should set your goals a little higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was figuring an average SNG time length of 45 minutes. Is this way off?

Because by that figure, you'd get in about 10 games per hour 8-tabling, and at the 10+1's that would get you $110 an hour invested, and an 13% ROI would be worth $14.30 an hour. That's like a third of the $40 you are talking about.

Or are you still talking about the 20's, even though you're responding to the fellow talking about the 10's? If you double the $14.30 an hour to $28.60 an hour to account for 20's rather than 10's being the game played, that's still far less than the $40 you're talking about.

Can you please clue me in as to the discrepancy in our figures?

[maddog2030]

Yeah I've definitely been thinking about this. The good thing is during the summer I don't need to spend that much, so I can keep as much as I need on the site. I just want the amount of money I can withdraw at the end of my poker stint to be equal or greater than the job I would've taken otherwise.

Just one question: have you been multitabling, and if so, how many tables?

[john_]

There's no gaurantees in poker. Sure, you might easily make more than you would have at a summer job. Don't forget if you receive negative variance you might lose your entire stake. As said in probably the only useful line from the movie "Rounders"... Always leave yourself outs...

[Mr_J]

Sure. 8tabling the $22s, continuously running 4 (= 12 sngs an hour). You should be averaging under 40 mins per sng.

This also includes rakeback.

[Blarg]

In ring games, I can multi-table 8 and feel very comfortable, but in SNG's, I normally stick to 4.

I've played 6 a few times, but I find I start losing reads and not knowing when and when not to push or surrender a blind based on the texture of things; plus I find it sometimes takes me a while to make critical decisions, and when I get over 4 tables going, the time can just run out on me.

I find it a little discouraging in a way, because doing more than 4 tables properly would be far more profitable. But since I'm just beginning and need to work on my game, I'm accepting it -- for now. When I see someone like J-lo come and post that they're playing 1000 games a month, though or raptor517 saying that he's 12-tabling, it sure makes my four-tabling look ridiculous, though.

It's definitely something it's important to me to pursue somewhere along my developmental path.

[maddog2030]

I agree. That's why I've been fairly conservative because I wanted to make sure I can acheive my minimum before committing to this idea.

Worst case scenario: I try this out for a few weeks, I (bust/lose too much/remain too stagnant) and just get some random job and cut my losses.

[Mr_J]

Heh, I didn't get to see it and I already know what it said /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

To the guys who said 20% at the $11s and $22s: /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
To the guys who said 20% at the $11s and $22s: /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Blarg]

Okay, I can see that now. Thanks.

[Blarg]

You seem to be stating very high figures for sustainable ROI at the 11's - 35 or 40% ROI. That looks like absolutely crushing those levels. Were you able to sustain that type of ROI there over a long stretch of time?

The figure of 20% you gave in relation to the 22's is barely different from what Irieguy just posted he expected a "great" player might get at the 22's over the long term.

I would be thrilled to death if I could get 20% at the 22's, but I do wonder how many winning players get that high. That would be a helluva beautiful thing indeed to me, if I could ever get there.

[Phoenix1010]

Oh I just noticed your post suggesting that he aim for 35%-40% in the 11s. I'm hoping you're suggesting that he aim higher than he's likely to achieve, so that even when he falls short he will still fall high, and not suggesting that he realistically expect to win at the theoretical maximum rate, without knowing anything about what kind of player he is and with the sole suggestion that he read and post on this forum. Either you were joking, you were suggesting that he aim for the sky, or you were setting the kid up for some major disappointment. I'm going to assume it was one of the first two.

[Mr_J]

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

----

"Real Good...20%"

"so by my thinking, 20% at the 10s and 20s is pretty sweet. but im doubting anyone has proven this over such a figure"

They're talking like 20% is some magical figure. It's not, and it is quite attainable for someone who's willing to put in the effort. IMO of course.

[Mr_J]

"That looks like absolutely crushing those levels."

"Oh I just noticed your post suggesting that he aim for 35%-40% in the 11s."

I'm not saying 35%-40% at the $11s is realistic, but it's good to aim high. Be happy with less, because yes 40% is crushing the $11s. It just shows that you have room to grow.

The reason I'm not impressed by the 20% figure is because I'm EXTREMELY confident I would do better than that longterm at the $22s, and I'm not a great player.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm not impressed by the 20% figure is because I'm EXTREMELY confident I would do better than that longterm at the $22s, and I'm not a great player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me if I question where this extreme confidence stems from. I don't know what you've accomplished, but I'll say this: if you haven't already played a few thousand SnG's, you are not qualified to be extremely confident about how anyone can do at them, especially in the longterm. And if you have played more than a few thousand, and throughout your sample you've beaten a higher level for more than 20% (which is the only conceivable situation I could think of that would justify your extreme confidence), then I think many people in this forum would disagree with your self-assessment as not a great player. Achieving greater than 25% ROI is not a simple matter at any level, it's not something you can glean just by reading the forums a bit. You alluded to it taking some sort of work ethic, and that's true. It's the work of becoming a better player.

[Mr_J]

"if you haven't already played a few thousand SnG's, you are not qualified to be extremely confident about how anyone can do at them"

I said IMO.

"You alluded to it taking some sort of work ethic, and that's true. It's the work of becoming a better player."

Yep. It's not something where you'll just read a guide and hit 20%. But I do think it is a very realistic/achievable ROI for someone who is willing to put in the effort into understanting sngs.

"Excuse me if I question where this extreme confidence stems from"

Understandable. When I said I'm very confident I can beat them for greater than 20%, it's not based on my results. It's based on my impression of the $22s and where I think my game is at.

[microbet]

So my post guessing a 68% ROI gets a huge response, but the key response is deleted!!!

How far off was I? I'd guess I was too low from the responses.

[BradleyT]

You were LOW lol. But the sample size was less than the average posters age.

[EasilyFound]

Try this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/viewpoll.php?Poll=2580).

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I even posted my sample was because microbet took a decent guess at it since (I'm guessing) he thought I was just another person who thinks their ridiculous unsustainable ROI means they're God's gift to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't sound like you were too insulted, but just in case, I didn't mean any offense. I think that most posters here had unsustainable ROIs for their first whatever number of games. It's part of the reason we continued playing them.

I never posted about my hot streak when I started, but there was a time I was pretty sure I could do 60% ROI in the $11s and was almost certain it would be over 50%.

[maddog2030]

I understand, I didn't take your post to be so. Again the only reason I posted my ROI was your guess was fairly close. I never posted it before that in this thread or anywhere else for that matter because it was a completely useless number. The rest of my post had nothing to do with my crazy ROI but it seems BradleyT continues to think I was drawing some type of conclusion from it other than it was unsustainable, even though I clearly said in that post I'm waiting for it to drop to something normal. The rest of my thread was basically me explaining that alls I want is a 13% ROI and wondering if I could sustain that. But he saw a high ROI and small sample size in the first sentence and went nuts.

Since I replied to your guess only to say your random number happened to be close and clearly stated that it wasn't a useful number, and some people still think they need to be sample size nuts, I think it's good I deleted it to avoid future misunderstandings.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
8tabling the $22s, continuously running 4 (= 12 sngs an hour).

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience, if you 8-table, you'll play about eight an hour. If you 4-table, you'll average about 4 an hour.

If you're constantly firing up SNG after SNG when you bust out, your mind will turn to mush after 2 or 3 hours, and you're not playing your best game.

Fire up four or eight all at once (this'll take 5 minutes), play for 40-45 minutes, then use the last 10 minute every hour to take a break, get a drink, stretch your legs, talk to a friend, run some numbers on a close all-in decision you just had, whatever. Just do something. You'll feel much fresher mentally, and your sessions can last longer. I'm convinced it's +EV to take breaks like this. If I'm really in a groove, occasionally I'll play two sets before a break, but no more than that.

Anyway, my main point is, if you're running hourly rate numbers, I think it's probably best to err on the side of caution, and 1.5 x (# of tables you play) per hour is pretty unrealistic.

[Mr_J]

"If you're constantly firing up SNG after SNG when you bust out, your mind will turn to mush after 2 or 3 hours, and you're not playing your best game. "

I think this depends on the person and how automatic their decisions are. You'll never be playing your best game, but that's because you are multitabling.

"and 1.5 x (# of tables you play) per hour is pretty unrealistic."

I've done plenty of 6tabling running 9 an hr. This was at the $22s.

[Blarg]

The only thing is I find it tricky to even have 4 up at once sometimes. Often Party/skins just don't start up another SNG for a long time, 5 minutes and more. I don't know why, because when they finally get one started, it's jumped in instantly and often that one fills up before I can click on a seat. So more than enough people can be hanging around the lobby waiting to play for a while. I often find myself stuck on three tables waiting for a fourth for a longish period of time. Sometimes even two waiting for a third.

That's what makes me think 12 an hour is optimistic.

[J-Lo]

When I 8 table, I get about 10/hr, because of the phenomenon to which blarg alludes. The frustration of waiting for another table to load is rediculous-- quick clicking and sitting down is annoying. Anyone know the best way to join SNG's fast, anyone make that prog yet?

When i play my SNG's 8 tabling "continuously," i play about 2 hour sessions, 2 sessions per day. I start at 5pm, take a break at 7:30. Eat, watch some tv-- 30-60 minute break-- very refreshing. Comeback at primetime, 8:30pm central time, and play til 10:30, but usually 10:15. I play til 10:15 because i stop loading new SNG's at 9:30. Sometimes i will start at 6, so i just move the schedule an hour later. The second session is shorter because i do get tired and my mind does turn to mush. If i find myself still wanting to play i force myself to stop-- because i feel playign too much will lead to burnout. If i really wanna play, i will finish my session, take a break, and then 4 table at a higher level ($55's).

The plan for this summer is to eat, sleep, and live SNG's. This means i'l try and move it up to 3 sessions-- try and play 'til 1:30am. My sleeping shedule will revolve around prime time poker hours. This could lead to burnout, so i'm gona be careful about getting out often, playing no more than 6 nights/week. Ocasionally throwing in a MTT or ring game night. Anyone got tips on playing the best poker-- i know each person is different, so different routines will work for people.

[Blarg]

Get yourself the most comfortable environment possible. Little aches and pains or discomforts that don't even reach the conscious level actually accumulate and wear away at you more over time than you would think.

I play from an overstuffed recliner now, and I can play for much longer hours and feel much better after I'm done. I can extend the foot/leg support out, change the incline to any angle I want, lean over one way or the other if I feel like it, etc. If it's cold, I can drape a blanket over me. I can sit cross-legged, or up straight with my whole body, or have just my back straight, but my legs raised and kicked out.

Stuff like that actually matters a lot.

[Mr_J]

"When I 8 table, I get about 10/hr, because of the phenomenon to which blarg alludes. The frustration of waiting for another table to load is rediculous-- quick clicking and sitting down is annoying. Anyone know the best way to join SNG's fast, anyone make that prog yet?"

I'm not sure which party poker you were playing on /images/graemlins/wink.gif

$22s seemed to start every minute (maybe every couple of minutes at the most). With the new reserve feature I don't see how getting a seat is a prob. Well over a sample if around 800 continuously played sngs (I did more more but the rest were in sets) I averaged pretty close to 1.5. This was all at the $33s and then the $22s.

[Blarg]

Right now, on the 10's, I've found it extremely frustrating for the last hour to get 4 in. I was stuck on 1 for over 5 minutes, have been stuck on 3 a few times, and am now stuck on 2. That's within two handful's of gameplay.

I'm not sure what Party you play on, but it can be extremely frustrating to get even four tables sometimes.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, on the 10's, I've found it extremely frustrating for the last hour to get 4 in. I was stuck on 1 for over 5 minutes, have been stuck on 3 a few times, and am now stuck on 2. That's within two handful's of gameplay.

I'm not sure what Party you play on, but it can be extremely frustrating to get even four tables sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always find it annoying to keep four constantly open, since I have to leave the "Welcome to Party" screen in front for like ten seconds before it refreshes and shows new tables. It can get annoying while you're playing, since I have plenty of overlap on my monitor. I'd say I get 5 or 6 per hour though. Tell me your party screename so I can stay away from you until I move back up.

[Losing all]

Maybe playing from the love seat is slowing you down, you lazy basturd.

J/K, I need a setup like that.

[Mr_J]

"since I have to leave the "Welcome to Party" screen in front for like ten seconds before it refreshes and shows new tables. It can get annoying while you're playing, since I have plenty of overlap on my monitor"

Internet speed affects refresh rate? I'm on a 1.5k connection and party refreshes about 2 secs after I click on one of the tables (like a forced refresh?).

Overlap makes a big difference. I've got overlap on my lobbies, but the fact that I can watch all of my sngs while still searching for another sng makes it pretty easy.

[Blarg]

It's pretty cheap. Some people look into outrageously expensive solutions, most of which aren't nearly as comfy.

You can go to Goodwill or whatever and get a used recliner for like $25. A table is...well, dirt cheap, especially compared to a desk.

And then you're set up more comfortably than someone with a $500 desk and a $800 office chair.

[YouGotBluffed]

Why do you need a link or a thread? It's simple. ROI is a percentage so it should be the same for all limits, ideally of course. I'd say any ROI of anywhere from 15-25% would be considered normal, any anything above or below that would be above and below average respectively.

[J-Lo]

15-25% is normal? hrm? tell that to irieguy.

My names on party/skins are addicted777 and booradlye83 <-- typo on purpose (well not on purpose, when i was registering i mispelled it)

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself the most comfortable environment possible. Little aches and pains or discomforts that don't even reach the conscious level actually accumulate and wear away at you more over time than you would think.

I play from an overstuffed recliner now, and I can play for much longer hours and feel much better after I'm done. I can extend the foot/leg support out, change the incline to any angle I want, lean over one way or the other if I feel like it, etc. If it's cold, I can drape a blanket over me. I can sit cross-legged, or up straight with my whole body, or have just my back straight, but my legs raised and kicked out.

Stuff like that actually matters a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just don't put the laptop on your lap. Y'know, radiation and all. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Understandable. When I said I'm very confident I can beat them for greater than 20%, it's not based on my results. It's based on my impression of the $22s and where I think my game is at.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand, I didn't take your post to be so. Again the only reason I posted my ROI was your guess was fairly close. I never posted it before that in this thread or anywhere else for that matter because it was a completely useless number. The rest of my post had nothing to do with my crazy ROI but it seems BradleyT continues to think I was drawing some type of conclusion from it other than it was unsustainable, even though I clearly said in that post I'm waiting for it to drop to something normal. The rest of my thread was basically me explaining that alls I want is a 13% ROI and wondering if I could sustain that. But he saw a high ROI and small sample size in the first sentence and went nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't go nuts, I told you to delete your post because any post mentioning ROI with less than 25 SnGs played is [censored] retarded.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you need a link or a thread? It's simple. ROI is a percentage so it should be the same for all limits, ideally of course. I'd say any ROI of anywhere from 15-25% would be considered normal, any anything above or below that would be above and below average respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you need a link or a thread? It's simple. ROI is a percentage so it should be the same for all limits, ideally of course. I'd say any ROI of anywhere from 15-25% would be considered normal, any anything above or below that would be above and below average respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

The major determining factor for what a "normal" ROI is at any stage is the level of competition. They have an inverse relationship. As you move up in limits, the level of competition goes up as well, and therefore the maximum sustainable and average winning ROI's go down. ROI is your winrate for SnG's, saying that there should be a standard winrate for all levels is like saying that 2 BB per hour should be the average winrate at both the 1/2 and 1000/2000 limit games.

Whoever was laughing at Mr. J for his reasons for his confidence, yes I thought it was a little goofy too, so I gave him a little grief about it. But there's nothing wrong with having self-confidence.

To BradleyT, the OP was responding to your accusation that he was posting this because he had a high short term ROI. If I remember correctly, his post started out by saying you were close on your estimate, but that that had nothing to do with why he was posting. It was a good post that would have cleared up a lot of the issues in this thread, and suggesting that he delete the entire thing because there was a mention of short term ROI was ridiculous, and I was surprised he took you seriously. You should have gotten off his case from the start.

-Phoenix

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't go nuts, I told you to delete your post because any post mentioning ROI with less than 25 SnGs played is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phoenix1010 summed up the situation fairly accurately. This is the last post I'm making about my ROI since this is going in circles. I have clearly stated since the beginning my sample size was too small to make any conclusions about my ROI. My response to microbet was first my ROI (because he guessed at it and it was close, I felt it couldn't hurt to tell him he made a good guess), then immediately followed by a sentence explaining how it was an unsustainable and a useless number. The rest of my 4 paragraph post never mentioned it again.

Over and over again I have repeated this. I don't know what you're trying to prove.

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right back at you. Lol. Moron.