Signing off/ 10,000 SNGs of data/ some FAQs

[Irieguy]

In preparation for the WSOP, I will be shifting my focus from internet to live play after I finish my current set of SNGs. Part of my on-line hiatus will include a break from this site until after the WSOP is over. I need to allow my mind to make the transition from "Push/Fold/Moron" mode to another mode that has too many components to name. But before I sign off for a bit, I thought I would summarize what I have learned about SNG play over the past year or so of very busy SNG activity. This is not meant to be an authoritative post or anything like that. It's just my opinion on a few things for the fun of it, based on a lot of experience.

As I was doing some bookkeeping regarding my backing/coaching partners last night I realized something. Between all of the players that I back, coach, or play with, I have either reviewed or personally recorded over 10,000 SNGs worth of data in the past 6 months. This is quite the heterogeneous data set, too. It includes players as young as 18 and as old as 68. It includes SNGs from the $6 level all the way to the step 5's, with at least 500 SNGs of data at every level except the step 5's (and close to 100 even there.) All of the players have the requisite knowledge to beat SNGs at some level, but not all of them are winning. A few of them disregard what they know about SNGs much of the time... but are winning anyways. It's quite a fascinating data set. I figured I would present this in "FAQ" style, because it will be a nice way for me to search for it and refer somebody to this later in case I ever feel like any of this is valuable. Again, this is all just my opinion based on a healthy amount of data and experience and I'm not interested in "proving" any of it.


What's the highest ITM possible at each level?

There is a limit to how often you can place in the money, even if you are playing against 9 monkeys. All you can do is get your chips in as a favorite when it matters most. How often you are able to do this will depend largely on your opponents... and that's why it's harder to do at the $215's than at the $6's. But even if you found the worst 9 players alive, you could only do so well.

That number is 44.4% or 4/9. I'm not talking about playing against 9 robots programmed to make the worst decision possible on every hand, I'm talking about 9 opponents who are trying their best to win money, but just can't do it (a standard $6 SNG.) 44.4% is simply the best that anybody can do over infinity.

I understand that a whole bunch of people have sets of several hundred SNGs with greater than 44.4% ITM. I understand that a few may even have 1000 or 2000 SNG sets that are slightly higher than this. I also understand the impact of favorable variance and I'm telling you that anybody finishing ITM more than this is on a heater from hell. Period. The best player in the world against the worst players in the world would be very, very, very close to 44.4% ITM over infinity.

So, what's a "good" ITM? Well, I can tell you after watching a whole bunch of really good players play a whole bunch of SNGs, that if you can get 40% at any level above the $11's you are either kicking ass or running hot (or both.) Once you get to the 1000-chip games, right now in 2005 the very best players may be able to achieve 38% over a very large sample.

Again, I understand that a few players may be able to furnish some impressive numbers that seem to prove otherwise... but I don't care because all those players will be gone in a year or less.

What's the highest ROI possible at each level?

This question is much more difficult to answer. I think that after reviewing 10,000 SNGs you probably have a good idea about where peoples' ITM really lives, but to have any idea about ROI you'd probably need to review a few hundred thousand SNGs of data (to really get a good impression of how people are doing.) So here's what appears to be true, though I'm much less sure about this than my opinion about ITM:

A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

I understand that there are players who have done much better than this over a large number of SNGs. I've done better than those numbers at just about every level for hundreds of SNGs at a time. Sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not. When the dust settles, the above numbers are likely to live in the optimistic ballpark for even the best players.

When should I move up?

Whenever you want to.

How big of a bankroll do I need to play SNGs?

This answer is much more complicated than it seems. It really depends on what your bankroll really is, and what you want it to do. The best answer I've ever seen to this question was AleoMagus' very serious answer of "one buy-in."

If your bankroll is only what you keep on-line, and the purpose of your bankroll is to keep you from ever going broke, then you need more than you think. Risk of ruin calculations are somewhat helpful in this regard, but it's all so ambiguously related to what you would REALLY do if you lost it all. Most serious players would simply find more money and start again.

Experience has shown me that most winning players will drop 20 buy-ins at least once in an average set of 500 SNGs, and some will drop 30. Over 1000 SNGs, you are likely to see 35-40 buy-ins dissappear and reappear over a stretch. Over 5000 SNGs, you better have a back-up plan if you keep 50 buy-ins as your "working bankroll."

I understand that not everybody experiences this. Good for them, they're running hot. It's fun to run like that. I know somebody well who played 1800 SNGs (multitabling) without a 20+ buy-in drop. That was awesome. (Over his last 400 SNGs his ROI is under 5% and he dropped 30+ buy-ins.)

Hey everybody, check out my ITM/ROI!

AKA

Should I quit my job today, or after 500 more SNGs?

There's a phenomenon that is not widely discussed, yet is pervasive on this forum. It involves positive reinforcement and selection bias.

There are close to 500,000 people playing SNGs at on-line sites around the world. How well do you think the luckiest 10% do each month? Well, the luckiest 10% (regardless of underlying skill level) do quite well. So, each month, there are 50,000 people or so who are convinced that they are the next Stu Ungar of the SNG world. If you come to believe that you may be able to make a boat load of money while playing poker on-line, you are likely to start doing some research into this idea. You will read, search the web, talk to people, etc. This process is likely to steer you in the direction of RGP, pokerpages, and this site. You are likely to learn the lingo, pick up some stats basics, and start convincing yourself that you are likely to be the real deal. This will happen to thousands of people every single month. A few thousand of these people will keep winning big for a little while, and a few hundred will keep winning big for a long while. This is all irrespective of skill level. These few hundred players; the luckiest 10% of the luckiest 10% of the luckiest 10%, are going to be able to make quite a convincing case about their poker prowess.

But the fact remains that probably less than 5% of all on-line players are beating the rake. I would argue that it's less than 2%. We are blessed on 2+2 to have at our disposal the free advice from several players representative of this small group of long-term winners. But of the hundreds of players on this site who are winning this month, or even this year, only a handful of them are playing the right way. Only a couple will still be participating in discussions about winning poker strategy in another year. Why would I say such a horrible thing? Because I've been posting on this forum for around 5 years (only recently as Irieguy) and nobody from back then is still around. Greg Raymer was around from 2001 or so (maybe longer) until last year when fame stole him from us. But forget about 5 years ago, somebody will sometimes reference a post from 6 or 8 months ago and there won't be a single poster in a thread with 1000+ hits who still posts today. Now, I'm not saying that the only reason why people leave is because their luck runs out and they get loser (Raymer is the prime example to the contrary); but that's why most people lose interest. So, you can pick your favorite 20%+ ROIer of the month and I will bet you even money that they're out of the poker world (effectively) in a year. In fact, I have several bets of this nature working right now and I sleep well dreaming of my payouts during WSOP 2006. Conversely, somebody who has "been around" for 5 years is 50/50 to be around for another 5 years. This is an old prop-bettor's rule, and it would have served you well prop-betting on the tournament circuit over the past 15 years.

The purpose of this rant is to simply point out that if you are winning, and have been winning for a little while, there are a couple of explanations for it: 1. You are blessed with natural poker ability. 2. You are on a heater. One of those two explanations is mathematically more likely.

How can I tell if I'm really good at this game, or if I'm just a luckbox on a turbo-steamer?

I've commented on this several times before, but it's worth repeating and rephrasing. If you think you are really, really, good at poker... have you ever wondered why? Here are some very good possible explanations:

1. You are a game-theory expert with an academic background in a field of study that applies well to poker problem solving.

2. You have played 5 million or more deliberate hands of poker. (They have to be deliberate; you don't learn anything while drunk, screwing around, posting and folding, or gamboooling) and have been winning over the most recent significant sample. You can't just start out by beating the game. You can start out winning, but you can't start out beating the game.

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

4. You have extensive training and/or experience in a vocation that involves interacting with thousands of people a year who are under extreme emotional duress or jubilation: like a social worker, psychologist, physician, lawyer, or Keno runner. This type of experience allows you to become intimately familiar with how different people respond to different emotions.

5. You are a natural-born poker prodigy

My experience has shown me that the first 4 explanations rarely apply and that most winners are relatively sure that they are just naturally good at the game. The problem with #5 is that I don't even know of such a human. Stu Ungar was the best gin player in the world before he started playing poker, and even somebody like Phil Ivey had already played millions of hands of poker (albeit at a very young age) before he started winning at the highest level.

So, if you can't explain your success rationally, then it is likely that it will be short-lived. There are a lot of people out there who are smart, well-read, well-prepared, and experienced in the art of extracting money from people who try to play their game. You may be able to BECOME one of them, but you can't just BE one of them.

Screw you, Irieguy, I'm going to use Aleo's guide, read Harrington's book, play 16-tables, get 30% rakeback and make more money playing SNGs than I could at my lousy job no matter what you say.

Bwahahahahaha... now you're on to something. All of my above comments notwithstanding, SNG poker as of right now is just a tic-tac-toe game. You can learn basic winning strategy relatively quickly, even if you don't meet any of the above criteria for winning qualifications. You can play a bajillion games and squeek out a small profit. But you better have a sweet rakeback deal because you won't win as much as you think, and it won't last forever.

I can't spell, my grammer is no good, and i get defensive when your replies insult me. Can I still be a poker god?

No. If you can't spell, you don't read. You can't spell because you don't know how words look. If you don't read, you don't know what everybody before you has already learned, and they've already learned everything, so that means you don't know anything.

If your excuse is that you really read a lot, and spell well... but you just don't take the time to read your own posts before you post them, then you are careless and you lack focus. There aren't many careless poker masters that lack focus.

Typographical errors and occassional syntax errors are part of the human brain naturally malfunctioning. I'm sure there are a few of each in any lengthy post (not including the ones in this section.) I'm also well aware of the conversational tone and syntax of an interactive forum. But if you notice that your posts routinely have spelling or grammatical errors (of course, you won't notice it yourself but you may notice other people pointing it out), I promise you that your poker game will improve if you start reading more. Poker books do not count in this regard. "Can you see why?"

I can't wait for an english teacher or writer to sift through this post and find 27 spelling and grammatical errors... before even mentioning my horrendous misuse of the ellipsis.

So long for now.

Ok, I'm off. I look forward to seeing all of you who will be coming out for the WSOP and I look forward to diving back into SNG poker "full time" in July. It's likely that I'll have a pretty big bankroll deficit from which to recover. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Play the right way,

Irieguy

[minwoo]

Great post. Good reality check.

Good luck at the WSOP!!

[ilya]

Godspeed!

[UMTerp]

Good luck at the Big One, Irie. I've definitely honed my SNG game quite a bit from thinking about some your posts. Hopefully you'll find your way back here in a few months - the forum will miss you.

[Blarg]

Good luck. Whatever happens, it'll make for good stories, and you'll probably eat out on it for years. Let us know what it's like!

[ace_in_the_hole]

[ QUOTE ]
How can I tell if I'm really good at this game, or if I'm just a luckbox on a turbo-steamer?

I've commented on this several times before, but it's worth repeating and rephrasing. If you think you are really, really, good at poker... have you ever wondered why? Here are some very good possible explanations:

1. You are a game-theory expert with an academic background in a field of study that applies well to poker problem solving.

2. You have played 5 million or more deliberate hands of poker. (They have to be deliberate; you don't learn anything while drunk, screwing around, posting and folding, or gamboooling) and have been winning over the most recent significant sample. You can't just start out by beating the game. You can start out winning, but you can't start out beating the game.

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

4. You have extensive training and/or experience in a vocation that involves interacting with thousands of people a year who are under extreme emotional duress or jubilation: like a social worker, psychologist, physician, lawyer, or Keno runner. This type of experience allows you to become intimately familiar with how different people respond to different emotions.

5. You are a natural-born poker prodigy

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you a #2?

[raptor517]

yea well, ill' show you, you, you punk that says i cant not spell or be gramatical like, or use proper punctuination and stuff. and i dont no how to spel. what is that anyhow?

[ QUOTE ]
World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]
damn. so much for my hopes of ever doing well at a game that requires the use of incomplete information. sigh.

irie, you know im sad to see ya takin this long extended break, however, my saturday games will be MUCH easier with one less solid 8 tabler. you make a bunch of great points about all these luckboxes on turbo heaters. i know one person im thinkin bout right now who KNOWS how to play and beat the game, but just isnt coming up with the results. i really think he could beat the 109s, without too much trouble at all.

anyways, i dont really know what to say. my panties arent in much of a bunch after readin this as you would think they would be. i can see how a lot of people might read this then immediately think, 'hahah, that sounds like that punkass kid raptor.' well, maybe it does. however, one thing is for sure, i can read. holla

[Pepsquad]

This sucks! But I can appreciate your dedication toward your goals at the WSOP. I wish you the best of luck and please get back here as soon as possible.

I wouldn't want to be at your table. They won't even see you coming.

See you soon Irie.

Pep.

[syka16]

[ QUOTE ]

I can't wait for an english teacher or writer to sift through this post and find 27 spelling and grammatical errors... before even mentioning my horrendous misuse of the ellipsis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an English teacher

[DonButtons]

Gotta be like me, I am the one (party poker gave me the exclusive right to suck out a lot).

Maybe this summer I can get in 6000 something sngs to see where I stand.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
That number is 44.4% or 4/9. I'm not talking about playing against 9 robots programmed to make the worst decision possible on every hand, I'm talking about 9 opponents who are trying their best to win money, but just can't do it (a standard $6 SNG.) 44.4% is simply the best that anybody can do over infinity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you aren't interested in 'proving' any of this, and I think 44.4 isn't a horrible guess as to the highest possible ITM for a pro in the 5+1's but the way you worded the whole ITM section making it sound like this is anything but an educated guess based on experience could be misleading to the casual reader.


[ QUOTE ]
3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.


[/ QUOTE ]

If a requisite to learning a game of incomplete information is already mastering another one, nobody would ever master any game of incomplete information, yet some have. As you said Stu Ungar was a Gin master before he became a decent poker player, but I think it highly improbable that he ever played anywhere close to even half a million hands of Gin, let alone a million.

I know much of this 'FAQ' is directed at a fairly small group of players on this forum, but I don't think it will get to them as much as you likely think. Still, you make some excellent points overall and hopefully this can hold off the "WOWOW MY ROI IS 433% SHOULD I QUIT MY JOB?" posts for a little while.


My best of luck to you in the WSOP, I don't think it is likely I will go this year, but since you vaugely promise to be around next year, I will see you in 2006 (Feel free to take a prop bet against me). I really do hope you do well and I wish you success (but not too much, nobody wants another WPT Forum member).

-Apathy

[Dominic]

I'd love to buy you a beer when you're in Vegas, Irie...your posts have been invaluable to me....if you're interested, PM me.



/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[AJo Go All In]

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

for what it's worth i think this number is way off. i'd put it in the 20% range.

[Amerzel]

I've always enjoyed reading your posts. Good luck to ya and .. Play good and get lucky.

[LotsOfOuts69]

Irieguy,

First I want to say thanks for the post and you had many interesting points.

I am fairly new to this forum and it has helped me alot on my poker adventures. I started out playing NL holdem on party a couple years ago and I can say that I lost early and often. I never read a poker book and basically learned the game the hard way.

I new nothing about aggressive bubble strategies, I couldn't even tell you how many 4th place SNG finishes I had early on, it was brutal. I would be second or third in chips and watch as the chip leader would steal my blind every round while continuosly folding to the short stack. My first thoughts were always collusion instead of great play.

I knew nothing of bankroll management or variance. I would take shots at the $200 sngs with $1000 bankrolls, only to win 2 in a row, and feel that I was the best in the world, and then blow all $3000.

I eventually found supersystem, and started venturing into multi-table tournies, finally making my biggest score in my poker career, finishing 2nd in a 750 person $55 MTT collecting $5000 for my efforts. This essextially got me back to even for my poker career.

I can honestly say from thsat point I have been a winning player, winning SNGs online and winning a satellite into the Foxwoods WPT event this year. I have also successfully qualified for the WSOP ME this year, it will be my first time at the series.

I only mention this because I found Irieguys post somewhat depressing at points, confidently saying that almost everyone who is winning now will be gone within a year. I think this is a poor statement and very demoralizing for the new players trying to become good at this game.

I want to tell everyone out there that it is possible to beat the rake and be a winning player, online or not, just keep playing and reading everything you can and you can prove Irieguy wrong.

--LoO

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
How can I tell if I'm really good at this game, or if I'm just a luckbox on a turbo-steamer?

I've commented on this several times before, but it's worth repeating and rephrasing. If you think you are really, really, good at poker... have you ever wondered why? Here are some very good possible explanations:

1. You are a game-theory expert with an academic background in a field of study that applies well to poker problem solving.

2. You have played 5 million or more deliberate hands of poker. (They have to be deliberate; you don't learn anything while drunk, screwing around, posting and folding, or gamboooling) and have been winning over the most recent significant sample. You can't just start out by beating the game. You can start out winning, but you can't start out beating the game.

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

4. You have extensive training and/or experience in a vocation that involves interacting with thousands of people a year who are under extreme emotional duress or jubilation: like a social worker, psychologist, physician, lawyer, or Keno runner. This type of experience allows you to become intimately familiar with how different people respond to different emotions.

5. You are a natural-born poker prodigy

[/ QUOTE ]

(a) I'm appalled at your lack of respect for Dance Dance Revolution (even though I don't even know what that is);

(b) I do think the numbers listed in the 109s and 215s are beatable (though they're much harder to obtain that people give credit for), but I also think people tend to inflate their numbers (or at least conveniently leave out a bad stretch or two) and the ones you list are much more accurate than what most people think/post - a lot of LAG types come into that game and run hot for a while, and then they're gone or have dropped back down when the long run catches up.

(c) Number 6 should be "live within 6 blocks of two Peete's Coffees and hit at least one up every day before you begin playing any SNGs";

Nice post.

[ZeeJustin]

Your post spouts off lies, miscalculations, and horrible estimates as if they are fact. That is the worst thing you could do in a peice of information like this.

[ QUOTE ]
The best player in the world against the worst players in the world would be very, very, very close to 44.4% ITM over infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is just absurd. A 45% ITM is attainable in the $10 sngs for sure by a merely expert player against merely average fish. Saying something as wild that this is not attainable even from the best player in the world vs the 9 worst players in the world is just totally absurd. I pity anyone that believes this to be even remotely close to being true.

[ QUOTE ]
A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 25% roi is attainable in the $215's. If you allow some game selection, and only 1 table at a time, I imagine an expert could maintain 35-40% in the longrun (it's possible that those figures are high, the 25% is certainly not high).

I can't even imagine what kind of ridiculously high roi's must be possible in the lower buyins. You're underestimates just boggle my brain.

I imagine your research process must have been pretty horrid. If you have 10,000 sngs analyzing 10 different levels of play, thats only 1,000 sngs per level at most. If you want to talk about ROI of a great player, surely you must have tried more than 1 player at each level right? And I'm sure you realize how meaningless 500 sngs are. Please elaborate on your research proces, because I'm sure the huge flaws in it will be obvious.

And wtf is that stuff at the bottom about grammar? Is this whole post just a joke? If I'm missing some huge inside joke, I really apologize.

[tjh]

Great post !!

Good luck.

May you win the WSOP, get famous, and be forced to leave the forum. It will be a loss for us but you deserve the success. May you also get a bit of luck to accompany your skill.

--
tjh

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this whole post just a joke? If I'm missing some huge inside joke, I really apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was kinda thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it.

[Pete]

someone having a bad day or what??

[Freudian]

Great post. Good luck with with your WSOP campaign.

[ChuckNorris]

I've been thinking about these things lately. I was also inspired by Gigabet's old post where he said that you should always concentrate in every single hand played in every single table you're at, whether involved in it or not.

I know I don't have what it takes to be a good poker player right now. But I'm wondering if I could one day become at least decent. I'm somewhat confident that I can beat at least 20+2 sng's, since I have made a couple grands from small stakes limit hold em and mostly from 11 - 33 sng's. But as you say, these games are tic-tac-toe. When I play, I try to do as gigabet said; concentrate on every hand at every table, whether I'm involved in the hand or not. I stare at the monitor and look at the tables, but I have no idea what's going on in them. I mean, if someone would ask me who raised preflop when a hand is on the flop, the odds are I couldn't recall. Well, if I would be involved in the hand, then I probably could. It doesn't really matter whether I 4-table or play just one.

Does anyone else recognise this problem? Any tips on how to learn better concentration and stay in focus at least most of the time?

[Jason Strasser]

I really do not agree with much said in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
That number is 44.4% or 4/9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry. If you are going to pull some random number out then please at least give us some idea where it came from. Sounds made up.

[ QUOTE ]
A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds made up.

[ QUOTE ]
These few hundred players; the luckiest 10% of the luckiest 10% of the luckiest 10%, are going to be able to make quite a convincing case about their poker prowess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds made up.

[ QUOTE ]
Typographical errors and occassional syntax errors are part of the human brain naturally malfunctioning. I'm sure there are a few of each in any lengthy post (not including the ones in this section.) I'm also well aware of the conversational tone and syntax of an interactive forum. But if you notice that your posts routinely have spelling or grammatical errors (of course, you won't notice it yourself but you may notice other people pointing it out), I promise you that your poker game will improve if you start reading more. Poker books do not count in this regard. "Can you see why?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds made up, do you see why?

Good luck in the WSOP, this post just rubbed me the wrong way and is loaded with garbage.

[syka16]

Me finded spelling errors.

[GrekeHaus]

Irie,

I don't even play SNGs, but a little birdie told me you had a good post over here, so I came to check it out. I was impressed/humbled/depressed by your post.

I would like to have seen some justification of the numbers you gave and hopefully someday you will give them to me (and hopefully somebody here will point it out to me, since I don't check here often).

Regardless of whether the numbers you presented are right, I think there are a few major points that most people can learn.

1) You can't do as well as you think is possible. It's just an illusion that occurs when things are running well. When things run poorly, you blame it on bad beats. This may be true, but you're going to have a lot of these streaks and they're normal.

2) The long run is longer than you think.

3) You're not as good as you think. With the opening of GamesGrid, I've been playing with a lot of 2+2ers and it's obvious that many of them (including myself) have huge leaks. I would be surprised if many of them would still be playing if they weren't rakeback/bonus whores.

I'll be looking forward to seeing you on ESPN shortly enough.

--GH

[jeffraider]

Good post but I'd be pretty shocked if Phil Ivey has hit even 1,000,000 hands of poker, let alone millions.

[john_]

Nice post...

Come back even if you win the world series of pokers...thanks.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post but I'd be pretty shocked if Phil Ivey has hit even 1,000,000 hands of poker, let alone millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure Phil Ivey is a good example, since he is (a) relatively young and (b) a primarily live poker player. However, I assure you that MANY online players have played over a million hands. Heck, many (myself included) have played 10k in a single day before.

[Blarg]

Good lord. I thought the occasional 4k a day I would put in was kinda nuts.

[Bigwig]

I'm with Justin and Strasser.

Frankly, I'm tired of your blathering. Enjoy your break. I know I will.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is all just my opinion based on a healthy amount of data and experience and I'm not interested in "proving" any of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care to ride Irieguy's jock like some undoubtedly will, but this quote is a key preface that seems to have gone ignored by some.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is all just my opinion based on a healthy amount of data and experience and I'm not interested in "proving" any of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care to ride Irieguy's jock like some undoubtedly will, but this quote is a key preface that seems to have gone ignored by some.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you've got a point.

Nevertheless.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post spouts off lies, miscalculations, and horrible estimates as if they are fact. That is the worst thing you could do in a peice of information like this.


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

The best player in the world against the worst players in the world would be very, very, very close to 44.4% ITM over infinity.


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



This statement is just absurd. A 45% ITM is attainable in the $10 sngs for sure by a merely expert player against merely average fish. Saying something as wild that this is not attainable even from the best player in the world vs the 9 worst players in the world is just totally absurd. I pity anyone that believes this to be even remotely close to being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes....

FWIW, I don't think that Irie is right on the money here either, but I don't think the statement about this not being remotely close is correct either.

I WILL attempt to prove this, albeit in what will no doubt be a somewhat controversial way.

...pokerprophecy top 50

Right now, the top 50 on pokerprophecy lists only players with over 300 sngs of data and the top figures look something like this:

Rank, player, ITM%, SNGs
1. mszakal29 55.59% 376
2. jcm4ccc 54.07% 307
3. The_Slow 51.03% 388
4. borchman 50.79% 315
5. meathead45 50.31% 489
6. fluffo2 49.6% 375
7. zoobowski 49.04% 622
8. fls78 48.84% 303
9. colddecked82 48.62% 399
10. TED42 48.39% 558
11. KyleH681186 48.24% 340
12. off_balance3 48.21% 307
13. Pseudofold 48.13% 347
14. Kritterlover 47.95% 440
15. vonMises 47.57% 473
16. ElBobo 47.56% 307
17. DC168 47.54% 305
18. ineedmoney1 47.47% 356
19. kbeck111 47.37% 342
20. raudaug89 47.31% 353
21. saabpoDOTcom 47.29% 516
22. reallyfasted 47.28% 626
23. Zoltar87 47.25% 345
24. Turk41 47.24% 417
25. GiaCacLuong 47.18% 1028
26. howboutajack 47.15% 403
27. ALLINHILL 47.06% 323
28. jack10wins 47.02% 419
29. matthewjl 46.86% 318
30. Spartanram 46.85% 365
31. redstar 46.75% 308
32. ualreadyno 46.75% 308
33. larf22 46.72% 458
34. gigle 46.61% 354
35. curlyqit 46.57% 408
36. NotStr8 46.56% 320
37. JayLe10 46.5% 1144
38. reddawg1221 46.42% 517
39. mooflac 46.39% 319
40. Cappy88 46.39% 388
41. jaydes 46.33% 449
42. woopdidydoo 46.28% 484
43. EIGHTBALL222 46.23% 318
44. TheDean051 46.15% 364
45. Firery23 46.15% 377
46. LAL316 46.15% 403
47. Gator47 46.14% 622
48. BlackCard 46.11% 1618
49. garymich 46.08% 510
50. LuckE_LaRue 46.06% 482

So, only the top 5 out of Party's (say) 200,000 SNG players are posting a greater than 50% ITM and all of these players are doing it over a stretch of less than 500 SNGs. We've all seen the kind of streaks that can occur over 500 SNGs and frankly, I'm surprised that this is as low as it is. The top five tells us nothing about what is actually sustainable, but it does definitely point to what is probably NOT.

So, looking farther down the list we see that by the bottom of the top 50, we are already getting very close to Irie's projected 44ish % with ITM values of about 46%

after examining each player individually, it's interesting to note that almost ALL of these players are doing this in the 30s and below. I think there are only a few players on that entire list who seem to regularly play higher than the 30s.

SO, I know what many of you are thinking... pokerprophecy sucks. Well, that may be but I still think that these numbers are important. While it no doubt makes some chance errors that are really misleading, I just cannot believe that an overall list like this, which essentially is telling us about the biggest 50 hot streaks over 300 right now, is completely wrong.

What I can imagine is an overall downscaling due to money finishes being counted as OTMs occasionally. Assuming that this is in the neighborhood of 2-4%, that still places pretty much all ITMs percentages over even the relatively short run BELOW 50%. This is the lowest stakes sngs too.

SO is 44% too low? Yes, I think so. Is it not remotely close? No. I'd have guessed something like 46-47%

Given that this is talking about absolute upper maximums, I think 44% isn't terrible advice and would qualify as 'remotely close'.

As for the ROI values Irie gives, I think he is further off here, but I'm a lot less inclined to comment with authority about what is possible at the 200s as I've never played even one. I will say that what I've said so far about ITM values does suggest things about possible ROI for the lower stakes.

I'd be interested to see a Pokerprophecy Top 50 for all the major buy-ins individually, especially if they continue to work out bugs and increase accuracy. Right now all of what I say may fall on deaf ears because I know there are a lot of pokerprophecy haters on this forum right now. Even so, I think the stats that I have just given may be the most useful ones that the pokerprophecy site currently offers and should be considered when thinking about ITM possibilities.

A year and a half ago, I think the numbers were higher. In fact, I'd say that over 50% was possible in the small stakes by a lot of skilled players. Not anymore.

Opinions?

Regards
Brad S

[Mr_J]

GL Irie.

[Unarmed]

Man... why does this guy get so much f'ing heat?

[ QUOTE ]
This is not meant to be an authoritative post or anything like that. It's just my opinion on a few things for the fun of it, based on a lot of experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is all just my opinion based on a healthy amount of data and experience and I'm not interested in "proving" any of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

45% ITM is probably very close to the max a great player could acheive on party stacks. Is it THE number? No, but who gives a f*ck, really.

For me at least, the ROI section is the most debatable. But it's nice to get some level specific guidelines for what a great player should achieve instead of the old 40% figure quoted in the original FAQ. Also, keep in mind the word is "great", which one could define as top decile, or whatever you like. The point is, he didn't say, the best player in the $215s will achieve x, or the top 2% of players will have such and such ROI. We're not arguing that.

Honestly, everyone with an ounce of experience who posts on this forum posts as if their opinion is fact. Auto, standard, insta, etc, you see these terms quite often. Here, we actually have two disclaimers stating the post is educated opinion, and people jump all down his throat...

Everyone just chill the f*ck out and stare at my avatar for awhile.

[cleinen]

Good Luck in the WSOP. I will miss reading your posts in the meantime. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[skipperbob]

Proud to be his Father /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Deuce2High]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your post spouts off lies, miscalculations, and horrible estimates as if they are fact. That is the worst thing you could do in a peice of information like this.


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

The best player in the world against the worst players in the world would be very, very, very close to 44.4% ITM over infinity.


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



This statement is just absurd. A 45% ITM is attainable in the $10 sngs for sure by a merely expert player against merely average fish. Saying something as wild that this is not attainable even from the best player in the world vs the 9 worst players in the world is just totally absurd. I pity anyone that believes this to be even remotely close to being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes....

FWIW, I don't think that Irie is right on the money here either, but I don't think the statement about this not being remotely close is correct either.

I WILL attempt to prove this, albeit in what will no doubt be a somewhat controversial way.

...pokerprophecy top 50

Right now, the top 50 on pokerprophecy lists only players with over 300 sngs of data and the top figures look something like this:

Rank, player, ITM%, SNGs
1. mszakal29 55.59% 376
2. jcm4ccc 54.07% 307
3. The_Slow 51.03% 388
4. borchman 50.79% 315
5. meathead45 50.31% 489
6. fluffo2 49.6% 375
7. zoobowski 49.04% 622
8. fls78 48.84% 303
9. colddecked82 48.62% 399
10. TED42 48.39% 558
11. KyleH681186 48.24% 340
12. off_balance3 48.21% 307
13. Pseudofold 48.13% 347
14. Kritterlover 47.95% 440
15. vonMises 47.57% 473
16. ElBobo 47.56% 307
17. DC168 47.54% 305
18. ineedmoney1 47.47% 356
19. kbeck111 47.37% 342
20. raudaug89 47.31% 353
21. saabpoDOTcom 47.29% 516
22. reallyfasted 47.28% 626
23. Zoltar87 47.25% 345
24. Turk41 47.24% 417
25. GiaCacLuong 47.18% 1028
26. howboutajack 47.15% 403
27. ALLINHILL 47.06% 323
28. jack10wins 47.02% 419
29. matthewjl 46.86% 318
30. Spartanram 46.85% 365
31. redstar 46.75% 308
32. ualreadyno 46.75% 308
33. larf22 46.72% 458
34. gigle 46.61% 354
35. curlyqit 46.57% 408
36. NotStr8 46.56% 320
37. JayLe10 46.5% 1144
38. reddawg1221 46.42% 517
39. mooflac 46.39% 319
40. Cappy88 46.39% 388
41. jaydes 46.33% 449
42. woopdidydoo 46.28% 484
43. EIGHTBALL222 46.23% 318
44. TheDean051 46.15% 364
45. Firery23 46.15% 377
46. LAL316 46.15% 403
47. Gator47 46.14% 622
48. BlackCard 46.11% 1618
49. garymich 46.08% 510
50. LuckE_LaRue 46.06% 482

So, only the top 5 out of Party's (say) 200,000 SNG players are posting a greater than 50% ITM and all of these players are doing it over a stretch of less than 500 SNGs. We've all seen the kind of streaks that can occur over 500 SNGs and frankly, I'm surprised that this is as low as it is. The top five tells us nothing about what is actually sustainable, but it does definitely point to what is probably NOT.

So, looking farther down the list we see that by the bottom of the top 50, we are already getting very close to Irie's projected 44ish % with ITM values of about 46%

after examining each player individually, it's interesting to note that almost ALL of these players are doing this in the 30s and below. I think there are only a few players on that entire list who seem to regularly play higher than the 30s.

SO, I know what many of you are thinking... pokerprophecy sucks. Well, that may be but I still think that these numbers are important. While it no doubt makes some chance errors that are really misleading, I just cannot believe that an overall list like this, which essentially is telling us about the biggest 50 hot streaks over 300 right now, is completely wrong.

What I can imagine is an overall downscaling due to money finishes being counted as OTMs occasionally. Assuming that this is in the neighborhood of 2-4%, that still places pretty much all ITMs percentages over even the relatively short run BELOW 50%. This is the lowest stakes sngs too.

SO is 44% too low? Yes, I think so. Is it not remotely close? No. I'd have guessed something like 46-47%

Given that this is talking about absolute upper maximums, I think 44% isn't terrible advice and would qualify as 'remotely close'.

As for the ROI values Irie gives, I think he is further off here, but I'm a lot less inclined to comment with authority about what is possible at the 200s as I've never played even one. I will say that what I've said so far about ITM values does suggest things about possible ROI for the lower stakes.

I'd be interested to see a Pokerprophecy Top 50 for all the major buy-ins individually, especially if they continue to work out bugs and increase accuracy. Right now all of what I say may fall on deaf ears because I know there are a lot of pokerprophecy haters on this forum right now. Even so, I think the stats that I have just given may be the most useful ones that the pokerprophecy site currently offers and should be considered when thinking about ITM possibilities.

A year and a half ago, I think the numbers were higher. In fact, I'd say that over 50% was possible in the small stakes by a lot of skilled players. Not anymore.

Opinions?

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

PokerProphecy frequently reports bubbles as ITM because the party poker system lags. ALL poker prophecy ITM percentages are higher on average.

[Kristian]

While I agree that 10k SnG's seem like a relatively small sample size considering the 'absolute truth' tone of the OP, could you just briefly comment what stats/experience you are basing your own opinion on, ZJ?
The numbers post by AleoMagus does seem to support the OP claim concerning ITM percentages.

[Kristian]

Don't worry. It really is. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jah0550]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't read, you don't know what everybody before you has already learned, and they've already learned everything, so that means you don't know anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great post Ireguy. I only have one problem with your post. IMO, poker knowledge is best learned at the table playing thousands and tens-of-thousands of hands. I do not believe that you can learn anything from a poker book. When someone writes a poker book, they are telling you how THEY play.
Poker is a game where there is no "correct" way to play. By that I mean, everyone's approach is different, so I believe that the best way for someone to get better is to figure out what works for you. No one can teach you the "best way to play poker," nor can you learn it in a book. The best way, IMO, to become a successful player is to play a ton of hands and observe what other people do(whether they are winners or losers).
In case you are wondering, I have read Supersystem and Sklansky's book for advanced players. I read these two mostly because everyone I knew said, "You have to read those books. They are so helpful." I would not say that they were of no use, but I was playing long before I read those books and my game hasn't changed one bit. The knowledge that both Sklansky and Brunson put into each of their books came from being at the tables themselves, so IMHO I believe that poker is not something that can be taught, but rather something learned from experience.
-Just my $.02
P.S. Good luck at the WSOP this year. Dont forget the little people when you are a millionaire.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Man... why does this guy get so much f'ing heat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually like Irie's posts and really respect his game, but this one is way off. If the max ROI at $200 was 6%, they would be empty. 6% isn't even the max sustainable at the Step 5's, and trust me, I have waaaay more data on them than you do.

I think the ITM part is close - a little off, but close. 10K SNG's is almost enough to prove that. But I think the ROI part is SO off, with a sample size SO small, that he shouldn't have posted it.

Maybe it'll be right in a year when the games dry up, and I'm talking as someone who took a couple of months off to work on his MTT's/postflop play anyway, but right now this is not remotely close.

[iMsoLucky0]

Someone got owned. Do you see why?

[hansarnic]

[ QUOTE ]

Poker is a game where there is no "correct" way to play. By that I mean, everyone's approach is different, so I believe that the best way for someone to get better is to figure out what works for you. No one can teach you the "best way to play poker," nor can you learn it in a book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only life were that interesting. I guess playing NL with mega deep stacks a wide variety of styles will work, but playing full ring limit (or SnGs for that matter) there definitely is a 'correct' way to play and if you don't use it your giving away money.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man... why does this guy get so much f'ing heat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually like Irie's posts and really respect his game, but this one is way off. If the max ROI at $200 was 6%, they would be empty. 6% isn't even the max sustainable at the Step 5's, and trust me, I have waaaay more data on them than you do.

I think the ITM part is close - a little off, but close. 10K SNG's is almost enough to prove that. But I think the ROI part is SO off, with a sample size SO small, that he shouldn't have posted it.

Maybe it'll be right in a year when the games dry up, and I'm talking as someone who took a couple of months off to work on his MTT's/postflop play anyway, but right now this is not remotely close.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ROI figures are probably a bit low (6-7% for each level is my guess), but on the other hand if you were to browse these forums looking for what is a sustainable ROI the answers you get are wrong in the other direction.

Without an anonymous system that would fetch all posters stats and crunch them, we don't really know.

[Paul2432]

Good, provocative post. Thoughts interspersed.

[ QUOTE ]
In preparation for the WSOP

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. Hopefully I'll join you, but it's looking less and less likely.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the highest ITM possible at each level?

Once you get to the 1000-chip games, right now in 2005 the very best players may be able to achieve 38% over a very large sample.

What's the highest ROI possible at each level?

A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Adanthar pointed out if this were true, noone would play the $215s (0.12*109 is greater than 0.06*215). Further, I think your ITM and ROI thoughts are inconsistent. For example, a 38% IMO will have a 12.5% ROI with a 0.11/0.12/0.15 finish distribution (1/2/3).



[ QUOTE ]
Only a couple will still be participating in discussions about winning poker strategy in another year. Why would I say such a horrible thing? Because I've been posting on this forum for around 5 years (only recently as Irieguy) and nobody from back then is still around.

[/ QUOTE ]

People could be around under different names. Just like you.

Paul

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
yea well, ill' show you, you, you punk that says i cant not spell or be gramatical like, or use proper punctuination and stuff. and i dont no how to spel. what is that anyhow?

[ QUOTE ]
World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]
damn. so much for my hopes of ever doing well at a game that requires the use of incomplete information. sigh.

irie, you know im sad to see ya takin this long extended break, however, my saturday games will be MUCH easier with one less solid 8 tabler. you make a bunch of great points about all these luckboxes on turbo heaters. i know one person im thinkin bout right now who KNOWS how to play and beat the game, but just isnt coming up with the results. i really think he could beat the 109s, without too much trouble at all.

anyways, i dont really know what to say. my panties arent in much of a bunch after readin this as you would think they would be. i can see how a lot of people might read this then immediately think, 'hahah, that sounds like that punkass kid raptor.' well, maybe it does. however, one thing is for sure, i can read. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry raptor. I disagree wholeheartedly that one who makes spelling errors and uses "improper" syntax has some sort of mental deficiency or cannot read. That notion is so antiquated it reminds me of 1950's gradeschool curriculum policy.

Some of the smartest people I have ever met are horrible spellers and often you will find that those that pay attention to such mundane detail are not capable of thinking at higher levels.

When dealing with a game that uses only a set of numbers, letters and symbols, spelling is of little concern.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
Man... why does this guy get so much f'ing heat?

[ QUOTE ]
This is not meant to be an authoritative post or anything like that. It's just my opinion on a few things for the fun of it, based on a lot of experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



This is just my opinion but the sun rotates around the earth. Not everything can be hidden behind the "my opinion" line that is thrown in there when such bold statments are being made.

-d1sterbd

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone just chill the f*ck out and stare at my avatar for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your avatar is nice though

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

But the fact remains that probably less than 5% of all on-line players are beating the rake. I would argue that it's less than 2%. We are blessed on 2+2 to have at our disposal the free advice from several players representative of this small group of long-term winners. But of the hundreds of players on this site who are winning this month, or even this year, only a handful of them are playing the right way. Only a couple will still be participating in discussions about winning poker strategy in another year. Why would I say such a horrible thing? Because I've been posting on this forum for around 5 years (only recently as Irieguy) and nobody from back then is still around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many winning players will just get tired of posting here. Some winning players will lose interest or quit playing poker for various reasons.

d1sterbd

[AA suited]

irie,

Max itm = 4/9 = 44.4%

Where did you get that '4' from?! (i'm assuming 9 = 9 opponents)

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
Many winning players will just get tired of posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if there is any doubt as to why, all one has to do is count the number of bad beat posts, ROI posts, and really easy decision posts on a daily basis.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Many winning players will just get tired of posting here. Some winning players will lose interest or quit playing poker for various reasons.

d1sterbd

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite natural. The longer you post the less new things you learn here. At some point it won't be worth the time spent (unless you enjoy teaching).

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the rake goes from 9% at the hundreds to 7.5% at the 200s makes me want to know how the decrease can be so large?

Assuming this number is somewhat in the range of reality, is everyone so tight/skilled at the 215s that it really becomes a pure crapshoot once party kicks up the blinds? Why play these at all?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone just chill the f*ck out and stare at my avatar for awhile.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm staring at your avatar, and wishing she was **unarmed**

[davehwm]

May fools?

[eastbay]

"But the fact remains that probably less than 5% of all on-line players are beating the rake. I would argue that it's less than 2%."

I think this may be the least credible thing said here.

eastbay

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
"But the fact remains that probably less than 5% of all on-line players are beating the rake. I would argue that it's less than 2%."

I think this may be the least credible thing said here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

How many do you think are beating the rake?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
SO is 44% too low? Yes, I think so. Is it not remotely close? No. I'd have guessed something like 46-47%

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe a player's ITM converges, a difference of 3% in ITM is HUGE, and to be "remotely close" you have to make a decision between 44% or 46%. I believe you can put them outside of each other's 90% confidence interval after less than 1000 tournaments. 44% does seem low to me, but I'll defer to greater experience.

Slim

[Slim Pickens]

At some point, I decided that with a fairly believable distribution of winners, between five and ten percent should be beating the rake. Unfortunately, I can't find the envelope where I did all the calculations, but I swear I'm not making that up.

Slim

[tech]

I think this depends on how you classify them. If you are including the entire population of everyone who has ever played online, 2%-5% is probably reasonable.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
The best player in the world against the worst players in the world would be very, very, very close to 44.4% ITM over infinity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of good stuff, but that is just wrong...

Worst players in the world: all 9 go all-in every hand (or at least 2 are willing to do so)

Best (ha!) player in the world: Folds every hand until heads up.

Result? Best player ITM approaches 100% over infinity

QED

Pokerscott

[Ryendal]

It would be interesting to have ZJ stats on his last 10000 games, including bad runs

[tomdemaine]

The pockets of bookmakers and rounders are filled with the money of those who thought that they could do far better than in fact they could in a game primarily based on luck.

Just my two cents

of course I'm much smarter than all those suckers because I've got a system and its unbeatable /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[XChamp]

I think you are overestimating the number of "former" winning players that now no longer play, went broke, etc.

For example, I think many have done exactly what you are doing right now. They have moved on to other parts of the poker world and no longer engage in discussion on this site for various reasons.

[tminus]

hey wait...44% ITM? That means that I am a gambler, this is the first time that I have seriously considered it.

thanks for compiling the data and good luck

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many winning players will just get tired of posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if there is any doubt as to why, all one has to do is count the number of bad beat posts, ROI posts, and really easy decision posts on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

...or the heat that one guy gets for trying to make a thoughtful post based on his knowledge of probably a dozen different players.

[Voltron87]

There are some absolutely terrible statements in Irie's post. At least some people are calling him on it and not accepting everything as gospel.

[DonButtons]

I will have to agree with ZJ here.

10,000 total sngs of various levels doesn't mean anything.

10,000 at one level, and then you can speak like the one. Ill give my insight after I do like 6k sngs this summer.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, poker knowledge is best learned at the table playing thousands and tens-of-thousands of hands. I do not believe that you can learn anything from a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky & Co. pointed out the problem with this thinking in SSHE. (I'm paraphrasing here) Most skills can be learned through practice, like serving a tennis ball. As you try to serve 1000 times, each time you do something more correctly, that action is reinforced by a more positive result (you change the angle of the racket and the ball doesn't plow into the net) and over time your brain naturally adjusts toward these correct mations and your serve become better and better. At the poker tables, however, bad decisions are often rewarded (caught my 2-outer on the river) and good decisions are punished (the other guy caught his 2-outer on the river). At worst this trains our brains to play less than ideally, and at best it just confuses us. Without getting away from the tables, reading books/forums, doing math, and learning what is truly correct and what isn't--regardless of how those decisions have been treating us at the tables--we can't learn poker as well as we ought.

Dance Dance Revolution for life!

[gumpzilla]

If you read about one sentence further in the original, he specifies that he's talking about people you will actually encounter in the games, not hypothetical creatures constructed solely for proving him wrong.

I agree with the major criticism that this post is too dogmatic. There are too many numbers that are produced and not really substantiated in any way (10000 SNGs from a playerbase that I'm guessing does not exceed a dozen doesn't really seem sufficient to talk about the limits of what is possible in poker), which is sort of the antithesis of what's good about these forums.

[BradleyT]

[/ QUOTE ]How big of a bankroll do I need to play SNGs?

This answer is much more complicated than it seems. It really depends on what your bankroll really is, and what you want it to do. The best answer I've ever seen to this question was AleoMagus' very serious answer of "one buy-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the best answer you've ever seen?

[Scuba Chuck]

Here's my view on your comments:

So you're reviewing your SNGs now that you're wrapping up this period of your year, and moving into more live play in preparation for the WSOP. What's glaring is that your results over your 10,000 SNGs were not what your expectation was going into the first 100, based on your skill level. Regardless if you expected a 30% ROI and only achieved a 26% ROI on the $33s or whatever level you want to apply this to.

My point is, who the [censored] cares? You have the wrong mental attitude right now going into preparing for the WSOP. The past is the past, don't let the results get you down. This post sounds depressing. Not that the information is depressing, but that you sound depressed (don't read that I think ur in a depression - clinical term). That your results have put you in a funk.

Well, wake up damn it! You got a job to do. Go and kick some WSOP butt!

Scuba
who hopes his grammer/english/spelling is all correct because I'm not reviewing this post.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
10,000 total sngs of various levels doesn't mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means a lot more than the 100-hand stats we see posted everyday. And from what I understand (maybe I'm wrong), Irie isn't staking crappy players like me so I assume this is a sample of people who (certain alises excluded) are considered to be at least above par when it comes to SNG's. Yeah, a statistician won't buy the numbers, but that doesn't mean there isn't useful information to be pulled from them.

I mean, it's not like all of us have years and years to gather a statistically signifignt sample of SNG's, and even if we did, the evolution of our play over that time would still skew our numbers. Is there no value at all in at least looking for trends within relatively small sample sizes?

[Voltron87]

These may be (and probably are) good winning players but Irie has no idea how well they are playing. That is the thing, the larger the sample size the harder it is to make sure all the SNGs are played optimally.

[R_Brite_TDX]

There is some truth to that statement I believe about the one buyin to move up. I think it is all relative to what money you have allocated to play poker. If you are a player like me that doesn't want to reload than this statement is inherently false, however if you have loads of money outside of your poker account that is allocated for poker than I certainly feel that this statement has some merit to it. YOu could have all of the charecteristics that Irie mentioned to make you a winning player but if you dont know when to move up or down then I think you will end up a loser. This in turn brings me to my next point of discussion. While I know that Irie's post is not meant to be complete but I think more discussion needs to be placed on BR management. Not just with poker in general either. I feel I am no where near a good poker player however I do feel I have a better understanding of BR managmeent than most people my age and probably better than the majority of adults that are much older than me. Learning how to advocate your poker and life are certainly important qualities if not the most important qualities you can have as a person and as a poker player. Take what I am saying for what it is worth though because Im sure there are grammatical and typographical errors in this post so that merely proves that I am not a good poker player. hehe

Brite

[Phil Van Sexton]

I know what you are saying, but I'm not too bothered by it.

He's basically saying, "I looked at 10,000 tournaments, and here are my opinions." Maybe he didn't always phrase it as such, but that's what it is, just opinions based on his experiences. You don't need 10,000 tournaments to have an opinion.

Nobody has enough data to calculate the numbers that he is speculating about, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. If we had all the numbers, there would be no need for this forum. Eastbay could just write a calculator that would answer all questions.

I like when people give their opinions here. If these opinions are controversial or wrong, so much the better, because that will stimulate discussion.

Would ZJ or Aleo bothered to add their opinions if Irie had just posted his exact results with no opinion or interprettation?

Of course not. Stats are boring. Opinions are interesting.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Stats are boring. Opinions are interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I, for one, hope the discussion of opinions continues (aided by stats, but not *decided* by them, if that makes sense).

Yugoslav

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read about one sentence further in the original, he specifies that he's talking about people you will actually encounter in the games, not hypothetical creatures constructed solely for proving him wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

-I didn't use the words best/worst.
-You must be talking about the paragraph before I quoted(yes?).

-My example does not imagine robots making the worst possible play. My example only requires playing against the very real life players you run across out there that go all-in with crap. Granted you only generally run into 2-3 of them per SnG, but playing against 9 of them as an example of playing the 'nine worst players' is no stretch at all. There are thousands of them to choose from after all LOL!

Pokerscott

[prunch]

the finest post I have read!

[gumpzilla]

I agree that opinions and uncertainty are interesting. However, I also think argumentation to support opinions is interesting, and frequently more interesting than the opinions themselves. While we certainly can't prove anything, we can at least argue for something more compellingly than was done in this post.

While I think you're right that these are just opinions of his, I think that there are many who read this forum who might take them as fact, given Irieguy's stature, and I think it's good that numerous people are pointing out that you probably can't take these numbers too seriously.

I also think that there are too many posters in these forums - many that are not as good as Irie - that take these kind of dogmatic approaches to answering actual strategy questions, and I think it's bad when that starts happening. So I don't like seeing it when it crops up in posts at all, even if they aren't in the same ballpark, because I think it sets a bad precedent for the tone of discussion.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
the top 50 on pokerprophecy

Rank, player, ITM%, SNGs
1. mszakal29 55.59% 376
2. jcm4ccc 54.07% 307
3. The_Slow 51.03% 388
4. borchman 50.79% 315
5. meathead45 50.31% 489
6. fluffo2 49.6% 375
7. zoobowski 49.04% 622
8. fls78 48.84% 303
9. colddecked82 48.62% 399
10. TED42 48.39% 558
11. KyleH681186 48.24% 340
12. off_balance3 48.21% 307
13. Pseudofold 48.13% 347
14. Kritterlover 47.95% 440
15. vonMises 47.57% 473

it's interesting to note that almost ALL of these players are doing this in the 30s and below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not me. Most of my numbers should be from the 50s.

Regardless, as I've said before, stay away from my table 2+2ers! I'm too lazy to table select. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
"But the fact remains that probably less than 5% of all on-line players are beating the rake. I would argue that it's less than 2%."

I think this may be the least credible thing said here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed...my PT and PTO tells me ~20% are beating the rake.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the top 50 on pokerprophecy

Rank, player, ITM%, SNGs
1. mszakal29 55.59% 376
2. jcm4ccc 54.07% 307
3. The_Slow 51.03% 388
......
7. zoobowski 49.04% 622
......
15. vonMises 47.57% 473

it's interesting to note that almost ALL of these players are doing this in the 30s and below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sat down with zoobowski sunday night, recognized his name and looked him up. I ran away as fast as possible. All of those games are of him at the 50s...

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the top 50 on pokerprophecy

Rank, player, ITM%, SNGs
1. mszakal29 55.59% 376
2. jcm4ccc 54.07% 307
3. The_Slow 51.03% 388
......
7. zoobowski 49.04% 622
......
15. vonMises 47.57% 473

it's interesting to note that almost ALL of these players are doing this in the 30s and below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sat down with zoobowski sunday night, recognized his name and looked him up. I ran away as fast as possible. All of those games are of him at the 50s...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yipes. I don't recognize that name. I will from now on.

[FieryJustice]

Just looking over the numbers, I know that I could teach a kid that couldnt spell how to beat the $10+1's and be ITM at least 50% of the time. It not like it is hard...the kids all bust themselves out. Also, the ROI #'s for the $109's and $215's seem low to me. Then again, i'm just some random kid that quit my job, so my opinion doesnt really matter as I wont be here in a year.
Jcardshark

[curtains]

It's not as easy as you make it out to be to teach any random person to ITM 50% + in the $11s.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not as easy as you make it out to be to teach any random person to ITM 50% + in the $11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not as easy as you make it out to be to teach any random person to ITM 50% + in the $11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to maintain that for a significant period of time.

[FieryJustice]

Ok...maybe not a totally random person...How about a person with a 115+ IQ that can form simple paragraphs? FWIW, I suck at grammar not because I dont know how to speak but simply because I dont care. I made a 32 on the English part on my ACT /images/graemlins/smile.gif Just remember..I am going to be broke in a year, so what I say doesnt matter, although I am fairly sure I could make 50% ITM int eh $11s with no thought required.
Jcardshark

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not as easy as you make it out to be to teach any random person to ITM 50% + in the $11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget a random person. I don't think anyone could do it over a significant sample size at any level.

To all those that feel like responding to this, please don't post your stats unless the accompanying data proves with 95% certainty that your ITM is not less than 50%.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Just looking over the numbers, I know that I could teach a kid that couldnt spell how to beat the $10+1's and be ITM at least 50% of the time. It not like it is hard...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you most likely couldn't.

Forget teaching a random kid, you also most likely can't do it yourself, /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Yugoslav
PS Btw, a true 50% ITM @ the $11s *is* hard...

[Willluck]

[ QUOTE ]
3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.


[/ QUOTE ]
Does Minesweeper count?
My score is 103 secs on expert.

[Unarmed]

Stop copying my post Yugo, ya biter! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[curtains]

JCardshark seems to have a very bad understanding of a normal ROI/ITM distribution in sit and gos, not from just this post but from all that Ive seen in the past.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop copying my post Yugo, ya biter! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, didn't see it in time, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

And per curtains point, yes, I'm not surprised at JCardShark's claim.

I'm generally apalled at the lack of game theory understanding of this forum (including when it comes to myself)...especially considering that STTs are probably lend themselves to it more than any other strcuture of poker.

Yugoslav

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
This question is much more difficult to answer. I think that after reviewing 10,000 SNGs you probably have a good idea about where peoples' ITM really lives, but to have any idea about ROI you'd probably need to review a few hundred thousand SNGs of data (to really get a good impression of how people are doing.) So here's what appears to be true, though I'm much less sure about this than my opinion about ITM:

A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

I understand that there are players who have done much better than this over a large number of SNGs. I've done better than those numbers at just about every level for hundreds of SNGs at a time. Sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not. When the dust settles, the above numbers are likely to live in the optimistic ballpark for even the best players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the responses here have been very, very bad. Lets go through this. First, notice that he posts THREE disclaimers at the top making sure that anyone with any type of reading comprehension will know that he is not spouting off anything as if it were fact, and further cementing the idea that this is not "a piece of information." He then goes on to give some estimates of what he thinks are sustainable longterm ROI numbers, based on his own experience of however many thousands of SnG's studied. So, he explicitely gave just a rough opinion, and qualified it with his sample size.

Now lets look at some of the posts that were made attacking Irieguy's. There have been at least five posts disputing some of his estimates, a few calling them "lies," or "terrible." Of the posts made so far in this thread only ONE poster has shown any kind evidence for his position, and that poster was IN DEFENSE of Irieguy. Everyone who has had any kind of disagreement has uniformly had the form: "These numbers are incorrect, here is the correct answer," without an ounce of evidence, calculation, or even so much as a statement of how much experience the dissenter is basing his opinion on. So you castigate the man for presenting opinions without backing them up, and then do the same damn thing. Gimme a break.

The only thing that has come close to evidence is someone's assertion that "if the maximum ROI for the 215's was that low, no one would play." Are you joking? Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying: if the true maximum longterm sustainable ROI was 6%, somehow everyone would know about it, despite the fact that few have a large enough sample size to approach the point where they can make valid estimations of what their maximum is, despite the fact that no one knows what the conditions of the game will be in a year, much less 5 years, much less the whole longterm, despite the fact that a lot of players there don't even care about the long term, and their decision to play is based completely on whether they're winning in the short term. So if the maximum were that low, everyone would know about it, and somehow even the fish who make the game profitable in the first place would also leave the game alone. This is the best evidence you could come up with to attack his estimate? No one knows what a true sustainable ROI is for the longterm, and anyone who dares to estimate should qualify their opinion by saying that it is just a rough estimate, admitting they could be wrong, and providing the evidence that they are basing their estimates on. To my knowledge, only one person in this thread has done this so far. Irieguy. Some of these responses are just sad.

-Phoenix

[Beavis68]

Does your ass feel better now that you have pulled these numbers out of it?

[Voltron87]

1. Why should posters give evidence in their replies? Irie didn't give any in his.

2. Irie makes a disclaimer and then makes a bunch of statemnts of fact, which cannot be interpreted as anything else. Sloppy writing, especially considering how many people on this forum think Irie is always right.

3. Good post.

[Beavis68]

gotta love the stats for a master

Player irieguy
Games played 88
Wins 20 (22.73%)
Losses 68 (77.27%)
Average Buy-In $37.73
Players with better winning percentage
Players with worse winning percentage
$200 Table: 1 wins / 1 losses / 50% wins
$100 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins
$50 Table: 0 wins / 3 losses / 0% wins
$30 Table: 18 wins / 61 losses / 22.78% wins

no wonder you are taking a break/

[Voltron87]

Red herrings aside, what are your SNG stats beavis?

[tech]

In the spirit of Irie's post, anyone want to make prop bets on how many posters in this thread are still posting at 2+2 exactly one year from the date of his post?

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
gotta love the stats for a master

Player irieguy
Games played 88
Wins 20 (22.73%)
Losses 68 (77.27%)
Average Buy-In $37.73
Players with better winning percentage
Players with worse winning percentage
$200 Table: 1 wins / 1 losses / 50% wins
$100 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins
$50 Table: 0 wins / 3 losses / 0% wins
$30 Table: 18 wins / 61 losses / 22.78% wins

no wonder you are taking a break/

[/ QUOTE ]

haven't we been though this one before?

I think irie uses a couple of other names that have better stats (iriechicken if i recall, or something to that effect)

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
gotta love the stats for a master

Player irieguy
Games played 88
Wins 20 (22.73%)
Losses 68 (77.27%)
Average Buy-In $37.73
Players with better winning percentage
Players with worse winning percentage
$200 Table: 1 wins / 1 losses / 50% wins
$100 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins
$50 Table: 0 wins / 3 losses / 0% wins
$30 Table: 18 wins / 61 losses / 22.78% wins

no wonder you are taking a break/

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is a joke.

Ugh....pathetic and retarded.

Yugoslav
...pm me if you want to know *why* and can't figure it out...

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that has come close to evidence is someone's assertion that "if the maximum ROI for the 215's was that low, no one would play." Are you joking? Do you realize what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a larger datamined database on *Step 5's* than Irie has to make that claim about the 200's, know who to look up the PokerProphecy numbers for at either of those two, and I can say, with 100% certainty, that the sustainable *Step 5* ROI is higher than 6% (my very unscientific explanation for that being that every village has an idiot.)

The maximum sustainable $215 ROI is not even in the same ballpark. [censored], Daliman was at 12% through 2500 of them, and as good as Dali is, he's not on my 'people I would sit up and run away from when they sat at my table' list. The (admittedly few) guys who are on that list most likely break 20%.

The reason I'm not posting evidence is because those numbers are so off that it's self-evident, or should be.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Red herrings aside, what are your SNG stats beavis?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not claiming to back and coach people, nor am I claiming to have 10,000 SnGs worth of data that I somehow gathered magical numbers from before I go play in the WSOP.

I stopped playing SnGs regularaly at the end of 2003 and started focusing on ring games O8b mostly, I ITM'd about 40% of the time, my ROI was around 28% I believe. I never tracked my Party games, only my UB games.

Still how I did doesn't matter for the reasons I stated above.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
gotta love the stats for a master

Player iriechicken
Games played 86
Wins 37 (43.02%)
Losses 49 (56.98%)
Average Buy-In $96.74
Players with better winning percentage 74040
Players with worse winning percentage 331991
$100 Table: 36 wins / 46 losses / 43.9% wins
$30 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins


Player stfu_donny
Games played 135
Wins 56 (41.48%)
Losses 79 (58.52%)
Average Buy-In $37.26
Players with better winning percentage 84400
Players with worse winning percentage 321635
$100 Table: 5 wins / 9 losses / 35.71% wins
$30 Table: 51 wins / 70 losses / 42.15% wins

no wonder you are in the WSOP

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[Voltron87]

I think having a good understanding of SNGs is somewhat relevant but you are right, just because you cannot prove you are a better player than Irie does not make your criticisms any less valid.

The fact that you would judge him on 88 games does make your criticism invalid though.

[ilya]

Hi Justin,

Why do you think the $215s are beatable for as much as 25%+? Do you have players in your database who've been winning at that clip for a while? Do you beat them for that much yourself?

While Irie's figure seems considerably too low to me, yours seems a bit too high. Not because I have any experience with the $200s...just because I'm a pessimist, I guess? I would be happy to be convinced that your figures are corrrect.

[curtains]

I agree that 35-45% is simply impossible, especially on the higher end, however I think if pressed ZJ would agree with this as well.

[Voltron87]

I'm honestly getting tired of people posting these winrates without more specific info.

Irie: 6% ROI!
ZJ: hell no, much more, 20-25%!
strassa: yeah more!

I'm not knocking those players, they're all better than me at poker, but some of these discussions are just useless.

[BradleyT]

ZJ has probably played as many 215's as anyone on this board. He used to be very active on this board a year and a half ago.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gotta love the stats for a master

Player iriechicken
Games played 86
Wins 37 (43.02%)
Losses 49 (56.98%)
Average Buy-In $96.74
Players with better winning percentage 74040
Players with worse winning percentage 331991
$100 Table: 36 wins / 46 losses / 43.9% wins
$30 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins


Player stfu_donny
Games played 135
Wins 56 (41.48%)
Losses 79 (58.52%)
Average Buy-In $37.26
Players with better winning percentage 84400
Players with worse winning percentage 321635
$100 Table: 5 wins / 9 losses / 35.71% wins
$30 Table: 51 wins / 70 losses / 42.15% wins

no wonder you are in the WSOP

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that the stats I posted are about as valid as the numbers in the OP?

Sorry for the mistake.

Player stfu_donny
Games played 183
Wins 71 (38.8%)
Losses 112 (61.2%)
Average Buy-In $57.6
Players with better winning percentage
Players with worse winning percentage
$200 Table: 2 wins / 4 losses / 33.33% wins
$100 Table: 20 wins / 37 losses / 35.09% wins
$50 Table: 0 wins / 2 losses / 0% wins
$30 Table: 49 wins / 69 losses / 41.53% wins

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
ZJ has probably played as many 215's as anyone on this board. He used to be very active on this board a year and a half ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The search function doesn't find any 1TT posts by ZJ that are older than 7 months. Was he posting under a name other than ZeeJustin back then?

[curtains]

Everyone needs to stop bringing PokerProphecy stats up when trying to insult someone. It's so ridiculous.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that the stats I posted are about as valid as the numbers in the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you mean since these numbers have nothing to do with the original post. Just pointing out the Irie isn't too shabby of a player (although we can only assume given such as small sample size /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

I can't find it, but I think I remember him saying that the "irieguy" account is something he lets his friends mess around with.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Player CURTAINZ
Games played 353
Wins 141 (39.94%)
Losses 212 (60.06%)
Average Buy-In $91.84
Players with better winning percentage
Players with worse winning percentage
$200 Table: 39 wins / 86 losses / 31.2% wins
$100 Table: 1 wins / 5 losses / 16.67% wins
$50 Table: 9 wins / 12 losses / 42.86% wins
$30 Table: 76 wins / 99 losses / 43.43% wins
$20 Table: 16 wins / 10 losses / 61.54% wins
Player:

[/ QUOTE ]

Your record at the 200s is less than stellar. I decline to take your post seriously.

[curtains]

lol I hate you. It seems that Prophecy used to give lower scores and now gives higher ones. All my other results are inflated (more recent ones), but my 200 results are deflated (older). Maybe that accounts for Irieguy's lower score from back then too.

[Voltron87]

aaaaah the irony is killing me!

pokerprophecy is off by quite a bit, I don't take it that seriously.

[byronkincaid]

Doh (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=f22&Words=&Searchpage=1&Li mit=50&where=bodysub&newerval=&newertype=w&olderva l=7&oldertype=m&daterange=1&bodyprev=&Name=3941) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[curtains]

I know, I just feel like they really used to give everyone worse results and now better results. Maybe some change in software?

[gumpzilla]

Are you searching the archives, or just using the regular search function?

[Voltron87]

They were probably tweaking it and something came out differently. I haven't bought it though and don't know too much about the dynamics of it, other than that it is off a bit.

[Daliman]

While I actually also disagree with a lot of what Irie is saying here, a 25% ROI in the $215's is NOT sustainable UNLESS the player is VERY table selective, plays one at a time, takes copious notes, and heppend to be awesome. The highest overall ROI sustained I have ever heard of in these is Gigabet at 17%, but that IS multitabling. You bring the world's best players in to confer on every single hand in one game at a time, are there is no way in hell they would sustain 35-40%, period. Even if it were a much longer structure, they'd struggle to get close to 30% I'd say, but that is a guess. Under standard SNG structure that is popular now, for which I personally consider Party to be, others may not, above 25% is masturbatory fantasization.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Doh (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=f22&Words=&Searchpage=1&Li mit=50&where=bodysub&newerval=&newertype=w&olderva l=7&oldertype=m&daterange=1&bodyprev=&Name=3941) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome, thanks!
clearly my search function skills need improvement /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Degen]

great post

Andre

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The highest overall ROI sustained I have ever heard of in these is Gigabet at 17%

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you got Gigabet's figure from, but from my conversations with him, this is low.

Have you talked to Dr_Zoidberg2? Rojosox? ComeonPhish? Dr_Gammon? ActionMonkey? Gamboholic_? ElDiablo? Since my conversations with these players are private, I'll just say at least 3 of these players have claimed longterm ROI's over 20%. Also, none of those players are world class sit'n'go players, and most aren't even experts.

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, none of those players are world class sit'n'go players

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Gig was considered the best of the best? If he ain't world class, who is?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, none of those players are world class sit'n'go players

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Gig was considered the best of the best? If he ain't world class, who is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is referring to the list of 7 players I mentioned. Gigabet was not included in that statement.

[Voltron87]

Have these players given you real numbers with sample sizes and details or just said "Oh yeah I beat the 100s for 20% sure"? This thread is full of silly claims, I'm not talking about you in specific just in general. Don't take this as me saying your numbers are wrong at all, just the winrates posted on this forum are suspect.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Have these players given you real numbers with sample sizes and details

[/ QUOTE ]

All but one has played over 1,000 sngs, about half have played over 5,000. Some of them have given me details with their stats (i.e exactly how many played lifetime, how many 1sts/2nds/3rds, as well as roi graphs, etc.), but not all of them have.

As for me personally, I have played about 4,000 200+15's, and have a very good feel for what is maintanable. FWIW, all 4,000 of these have been played with some major leaks in my game, so I certianly don't claim to be one of the best players in them.

[raptor517]

ZJ i know for certain 2 of those players dont have near the sample size to consider 20+% significant. im sure you have had runs of at least 500 at over 20%. its not all that hard to win 15 extra coinflips over the 500 sngs to boost the roi a few solid percentage points. holla

[Eder]

[quote
Yugoslav
PS Btw, a true 50% ITM @ the $11s *is* hard...

[/ QUOTE ]

But >40% is doable

[raptor517]

at the 10+1s 40%+ is VERY doable. holla

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
ZJ i know for certain 2 of those players dont have near the sample size to consider 20+% significant

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you aren't disagreeing with me, but I'm just going to clarify that I never said that all 7 of those players have claimed 20%+ roi's.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you talked to Dr_Zoidberg2? Rojosox? ComeonPhish? Dr_Gammon? ActionMonkey? Gamboholic_? ElDiablo? Since my conversations with these players are private, I'll just say at least 3 of these players have claimed longterm ROI's over 20%. Also, none of those players are world class sit'n'go players, and most aren't even experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have > 100 SNGs on 4 of the 7 players listed. Certainly, the sample sizes are way, way too small to judge long-term win rate and my presence at the table vs. some average fish (I'm still in denial about my fish status) should lower their expected ROI a bit. But I highly doubt any of these four come close to 20% ROI ($20/per, yes) over the long, long-run with all its $10,000 downswings, etc.

Not to hate or anything, they're all good winning players who I don't want at my table - unless it's Gammon on perma-tilt (but he seems to have calmed down his play (though not his chat rant about Party being rigged, etc.)).

actionmonkey:

180 games
-$5,300
ROI = -13.7%

ComeonPhish:

158 games
+$2,645
ROI = +7.79%

Dr_Gammon:

151 games
+$3,335
ROI = +10.27%

Gamoholic_

237 games
+$5,845

ROI = +11.47%

All four averaged:

726 games
+$6,525
ROI = +4.18%

[ForumBot]

FOLD

[Blarg]

Maybe it's just simple anecdotal evidence, but I constantly see reported on here that people have pokerprophecy win rates listed that are much higher than their real ones. This has been the case for me, too. I'm even listed as winning a game at a level I've never won one at.

So perhaps it's the case that the numbers you're drawing conclusions from are also exaggerated.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just simple anecdotal evidence, but I constantly see reported on here that people have pokerprophecy win rates listed that are much higher than their real ones. This has been the case for me, too. I'm even listed as winning a game at a level I've never won one at.

So perhaps it's the case that the numbers you're drawing conclusions from are also exaggerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, mine are a bit higher than they should be as well. I hope everyone realizes that, if anything, this phenomenon actually strengthens what AM was trying to say.

[Blarg]

It would certainly tend to do so. It does seem a little strange to me when we're using the very ureliability of unreliable numbers to help prove a point, though.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]

What's the highest ROI possible at each level?

This question is much more difficult to answer. I think that after reviewing 10,000 SNGs you probably have a good idea about where peoples' ITM really lives, but to have any idea about ROI you'd probably need to review a few hundred thousand SNGs of data (to really get a good impression of how people are doing.) So here's what appears to be true, though I'm much less sure about this than my opinion about ITM:

A great $6/$11 player can probably sustain 30% or so.

A great $22/$33 player can probably sustain 22% or so.

A great $55 player can proabably sustain 18% or so.

A great $109 player can probably sustain 12% or so.

A great $215 player can probably sustain 6% or so.

I understand that there are players who have done much better than this over a large number of SNGs. I've done better than those numbers at just about every level for hundreds of SNGs at a time. Sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not. When the dust settles, the above numbers are likely to live in the optimistic ballpark for even the best players.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was interesting and worth noting that tonight I read a post you wrote in January, Irie:

[ QUOTE ]

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), here's my opinion on what good-great-max. attainable ROIs are at the various levels, playing 1 table. In parenthesis I'll put the multitable numbers assuming 8 tables at $11-$33, and 6 tables at $55-$215. This is for Party:

$11: 25%-35%-45% (20-30-40)
$22: 20%-30%-42% (15-25-37)
$33: 15%-25%-40% (12-20-32)
$55: 10%-20%-33% (8-16-23)
$109: 8%-14%-22% (5-10-18)
$215: 2%-10%-18% (1-6-10)

Some people would argue that you should flip-flop the numbers for the $10's and $20's. This is based on the theory that it's easier to win when you play against better players for more money... so I could be way off there.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]


quite different numbers in the highest levels

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]


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

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.



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


Does Minesweeper count?
My score is 103 secs on expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, and here I thought I was God's gift to Minesweeper with a 111 back in the day (about 10 years ago). Forget high stakes poker - pressure is getting down to about 20 flags on the expert level in Minesweeper on pace for your record...

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The highest overall ROI sustained I have ever heard of in these is Gigabet at 17%

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you got Gigabet's figure from, but from my conversations with him, this is low.

Have you talked to Dr_Zoidberg2? Rojosox? ComeonPhish? Dr_Gammon? ActionMonkey? Gamboholic_? ElDiablo? Since my conversations with these players are private, I'll just say at least 3 of these players have claimed longterm ROI's over 20%. Also, none of those players are world class sit'n'go players, and most aren't even experts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dr Zoidberg:Never heard of him

Rojosox: I am VERY familiar with Rojo's game. We talk alot. his % is around mine, maybe a bit higher, as he's new to 4- tabling.

ComeOnPhish: If his #'s are in double digits, I'll eat a shoe. Other good players I have spoker with agree; he's a 8-12 table grinder, that's all. Nothing special about his normal game at all, and lotta bad about it.

Dr_Gammon: A long time ago we chatted some, his returns were similar ti mine. No surprise, as I consider our games almost mirror images.

Actionmonkey: If he is Mistermo as is widely suspected, he told me long ago he makes $23 per, which likely has changed to worse as the games have gotten tougher.

Gamboholic: Yet another guy I'd eat a shoe if his ROI was higher than 9%. He's just not that good.

El Diablo: Last I heard, it had been quite awhile since he'd played these with any regularity, and the games have changed.

So I'm not sure who these 3 are that are over 20%, as at least 5 I'm anywhere from positive to alomost positive they are not, for varying reasons. People lie, btw.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.



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


Does Minesweeper count?
My score is 103 secs on expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, and here I thought I was God's gift to Minesweeper with a 111 back in the day (about 10 years ago). Forget high stakes poker - pressure is getting down to about 20 flags on the expert level in Minesweeper on pace for your record...

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely think Minesweeper counts. I may be the world's largest Minesweeper junkie and have recorded 89 seconds. If I open the game (which I don't very often anymore), I won't let myself go to bed until I post a 120 or less.

Edit: Whew, first try 117. Good night all!

[curtains]

It's very easy to lie and or not enter hand histories into PT when you have a terrible losing session. I personally know people who do this, it somehow makes them feel better, but have no idea why.

[lutefisk]

Hot stuff!

This thread has turned into a who's who from the past few months at least. I'm going to bump this so I can pretend to be associated with all you good players!

(dead fish posing)

"Only after the 10th punch will you see the fist, and only after the 20th will you block it." --Proverb from the game of Go

[checkers777]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.



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


Does Minesweeper count?
My score is 103 secs on expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, and here I thought I was God's gift to Minesweeper with a 111 back in the day (about 10 years ago). Forget high stakes poker - pressure is getting down to about 20 flags on the expert level in Minesweeper on pace for your record...

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely think Minesweeper counts. I may be the world's largest Minesweeper junkie and have recorded 89 seconds. If I open the game (which I don't very often anymore), I won't let myself go to bed until I post a 120 or less.

Edit: Whew, first try 117. Good night all!

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent' played in a while, but my best time for intermediate level was 19 seconds, and for the advanced level, 69 seconds. Yes, I confess, I used to be a minesweeper addict.

[FieryJustice]

All the college kids are amazed that I can beat the easy level on minesweeper...They must all be dumb. I beat the intermediate level once and I thought I was the [censored]. You people all pwn me.
Jcardshark

[hummusx]

[ QUOTE ]
All the college kids are amazed that I can beat the easy level on minesweeper...They must all be dumb. I beat the intermediate level once and I thought I was the [censored]. You people all pwn me.
Jcardshark

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to see a video to even believe that someone could beat this in the times people are talking. After that, I'd never open the game again for fear of feeling completely inadequate.

[pergesu]

I beat expert in like 4 minutes once...man did that rock

[Blarg]

I did expert in 133.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to see a video to even believe that someone could beat this in the times people are talking. After that, I'd never open the game again for fear of feeling completely inadequate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask and you shall receive:

http://metanoodle.com/minesweeper/videos.html

[Unarmed]

I'm posting this because I would like for this thread to last forever.

[ QUOTE ]

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), here's my opinion on what good-great-max. attainable ROIs are at the various levels, playing 1 table. In parenthesis I'll put the multitable numbers assuming 8 tables at $11-$33, and 6 tables at $55-$215. This is for Party:

$11: 25%-35%-45% (20-30-40)
$22: 20%-30%-42% (15-25-37)
$33: 15%-25%-40% (12-20-32)
$55: 10%-20%-33% (8-16-23)
$109: 8%-14%-22% (5-10-18)
$215: 2%-10%-18% (1-6-10)

Some people would argue that you should flip-flop the numbers for the $10's and $20's. This is based on the theory that it's easier to win when you play against better players for more money... so I could be way off there.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]
Jan - 05

I said earlier that "great" is clearly a subjective term. Does everyone feel better now?

[Kristian]

I can honestly say that I have never beaten the expert level of minesweeper. Thought y'all might like to know.

[schwah]

i would put $5k on me being able to beat the 105 stars turbos for more than 12% over my next 1000.

would you take that bet?

i mean if 12% is the ceiling, it's a great bet for you. so lets do it.

[gumpzilla]

a) Notice how he hasn't responded to anything in this thread? I don't think he's here at the moment.

b) This would be a pretty foolish bet to take unless you really, really trusted the person, as he has no way of verifying whether or not you perform as well as you claim.

[schwah]

a) i only read the first post in this thread, i don't come here often /images/graemlins/smile.gif

b) yeah i doubt it would ever happen. i'm just saying that i'm confident enough i can beat his "maximum" numbers that i would take that bet in a heartbeat.


and for the record, i beat expert minesweep in 91 seconds

[schwah]

eesh, 44 seconds in those videos

wouldn't have thought it was possible

[schwah]

his mouse speed/accuracy is pretty unbelievable though

is it possible he just wrote a program that plays minesweep for him?

[Blarg]

There actually is a program that solves minesweeper for you.

[stupidsucker]

pick pick pick

Eat the straw, and use the sticks to pick your teeth with.

Although the data in the post is off, it still holds more truth then what some other posts about ITM/ROI etc.

When I first started playing I was running a 36% roi solid after about 500ish games. The old FAQ even stated that this was just average.

I take the last portion of the post a little personal though. People have different brains. I want to know the sample size of grammatical errors= bad poker. Granted I know that many people have pet peeves over bad spelling etc. But thats all it is.

There are people out there such as myself that just dont give a poop about spelling. There are times when bad spelling/sentence structure can completely change the meaning.

Their R timez when U Kan spill things canpletly off-but N-E 1 with generl com skillz noes what U meen. wihtout hesitation.

For me... I have things to do more important then making sure that Ive put a ' in my my I've. Its not even an error anymore in my book. Its simply time managment. Play more poker or go back to make sure everyone knows that I know how to spell I've with an apostraphy.


Most people wont even read this post because there is too much here to read already.
Irieguy has owned us all, because he got us all pissed off and he isnt even going to read the responses.

I will see him this week. I will kick his ass for us all.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You are a game-theory expert with an academic background in a field of study that applies well to poker problem solving.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You have played 5 million or more deliberate hands of poker. (They have to be deliberate; you don't learn anything while drunk, screwing around, posting and folding, or gamboooling) and have been winning over the most recent significant sample. You can't just start out by beating the game. You can start out winning, but you can't start out beating the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOPE.

[ QUOTE ]
3. You have mastered another analytical game such as chess, bridge, backgammon, or gin. World-class status at games of incomplete information like bridge or gin are particularly likely to improve your chances of poker mastery, and vice versa. Dance Dance Revolution wouldn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not.

[ QUOTE ]
4. You have extensive training and/or experience in a vocation that involves interacting with thousands of people a year who are under extreme emotional duress or jubilation: like a social worker, psychologist, physician, lawyer, or Keno runner. This type of experience allows you to become intimately familiar with how different people respond to different emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

[ QUOTE ]
5. You are a natural-born poker prodigy

[/ QUOTE ]

No again.

This post is depressing. Guess I should just be thankful for my lucky streak so far, cash in my winnings, and give up the game for good.

Thought-provoking post, but I think Irie overestimates the amount of mathematical/game-theory/analytical genius needed to be a successful poker player. Judging by this post, only a few Chosen Ones can ever dream of having the ability to be long-term winners at this game. I'm all for being realistic, and I know that it's easy for players (myself included) to think they are better than they are. But there are a lot of average people, of average intelligence, with average math skills, winning at poker on a regular basis. Poker is a skill that can be learned by those with the dedication to learn it.

[Voltron87]

Well you are Mr Met, sets you in a league of your own when compared to prodigies, bridge experts, and the like.

[Newt_Buggs]

yeah, what about the people who try hard and study the game? It seems like poker is a theoretical game that can be learned, it just takes some people a lot more work than others.

Besides, just look at the 10s. Maybe I don't have the talent to beat the 100s with any amount of practice/study. I really, really doubt that the rake overcomes the ass clowns at the 10s. I'm sure there are a lot of people that can beat the 10s/20s by a significant margin

[viennagreen]

There are a lot of things that I disagree with in here--- and others have elaborated on them, so I'll just mention a few things that people haven't mentioned...

**
I disagree with your theory on why posters "vanish". I think 2+2 is a great starting point for newbies--- it was for me--- but there is a point when a player just doesn't get anything out of it anymore. I learn less and less from these forums every day, and it's beginning to be just a waste of time. Players better than me must feel the same way.

Also-- when does a good player realize how -EV it is for them to contribute?

Of course, different people have different reasons for posting, but I think that many of the frequent posters like the "status" of poker-expert/advisor/mentor (but aren't necessarily qualified)...

The real experts post way less than they used to--- Strasser, ZeeJustin, Daliman, Eastbay (to name a few)... a year ago when I started playing SNGs full-time, it was their posts that got me on the right track. I don't know any of them personally, but I doubt that they post less because they've lost interest in poker (from losing or otherwise).. I think that it's more likely that they post less because they've lost interest in 2+2.
**

I do agree with you about SNG bankroll requirements... I think my first post on this forum (if not THE first for me, one of the first) was contesting the standard 20-30 buy-ins advice that everyone was so casually throwing around...

***


In any case--- good luck in the WSOP.

[Beavis68]

One reason the good players stop posting (I think) is that they hate arguing with noobs over the same damn points every few weeks.

I know I drove a few people away from Pokerpages with my book learned BS (wrong books). One of them came here.

[curtains]

20-30 buyin bankroll is usually very insufficient, especially at the higher levels. However at the lower levels, if you plan to move down after losing a few buyins, it's usually okay - especially since it's more easily replenishible.

[raptor517]

i lose 20 buyins every day. 20 sure as hell isnt enough. 50 isnt enough. 100 MIGHT be enough. but i would be happier with more. holla

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, what about the people who try hard and study the game? It seems like poker is a theoretical game that can be learned, it just takes some people a lot more work than others.

Besides, just look at the 10s. Maybe I don't have the talent to beat the 100s with any amount of practice/study. I really, really doubt that the rake overcomes the ass clowns at the 10s. I'm sure there are a lot of people that can beat the 10s/20s by a significant margin

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's refering to people who grid by playing small stakes and being bonus whores. I think he's refering to people who can become expert players.

A lot of people can learn enough to become low limit grinders, but even more people at this level will be delluding themselves about being able to beat these games.

[Phoenix1010]

I would just like to say that I never understood what was up with Irie's new avatar, but after I saw TBL for the second time in years last night, I think it's hilarious. I also found out what STFU Donnie means. I feel so enlightened. Does anyone have a .GIF of John Turturro doing that little dance after he bowls the strike in his first scene?

[FieryJustice]

I totally agree with Raptor about the bankroll. I know for a fact that 30 buyins isnt enough as I just lost 30 in the last week. I would not feel comfortable at the higher levels with at least 100 buyins. As for the lower levels, 50 should be fine if you never want to go broke.
~Jcardshark

[gh9801]

I wonder how long it took him to write this.

[Maulik]

To make discussions more useful, its usually best not to have a thread 7 pages long. Start a new thread title it: "In Response to: Irie: ROI" etc.

good luck.

brilliant

[valenzuela]

Im really concerned about ppl taking irie as god, many poster accept anything he says , if i say those numbers I get killed by the same poster that said " great post"I have only played like 600 sng but I can still diasagree and criticize Iries post which simply doesnt make sense to me.
However 1 post doesnt mean hes a bad poster, hes a really good poster but his way off on this one.