Your maximum expectation

[FlFishOn]

I'm just poking around in the online MTTs and won a $33 event with 340 starters. Nice. But i make my living playing cash NL online and understand the financial angles of that really well. No so in MTTs.

Assume an average-skilled field in for $33. As a MTT pro, a really sharp player, what do you figure your expectation? Over $125? More? The time involved is keeping me away since i figure to earn more at ring play but I just don't have the numbers to make a solid comparison.

Also what's the EV of a $110 tourney? Is it 75% that of a $33 proportionally?

[MLG]

A really good player online has an expectation of about 2.5 times the buy-in.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
A really good player online has an expectation of about 2.5 times the buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to agree with you on this (or on any specific number, for that matter), but IMO we have very little statistically relevant information about how on-line MTT players (great, good or terrible) are actually doing, in terms of ROI.

For instance, as far as I know (also from reading these boards), there are quite a few well known and "successful" on-line MTT players, who are actually losers or breaking even. I am certain the opposite is also true. (edit: by opposite I mean "terrible" players who are big winners).

[Percula]

Here is the way to max your ROI playing MTT, multitable a couple ring games while you are play the MTT. If you hit the final table you will have a very good ROI, but if you dont, you are still making money in the rings.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the way to max your ROI playing MTT, multitable a couple ring games while you are play the MTT. If you hit the final table you will have a very good ROI, but if you dont, you are still making money in the rings.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with ROI, only with $/H.

[wiseheart]

I think MTT tournament play is its own skill
set which requires practice and discipline
seperate just from the practice at ring table.
Using my self as an example, I have won consistently
at MTT's and made $2k in the last month, but lost
it all at ring table games, because I have less
practice and discipline there. Just my thoughts.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the way to max your ROI playing MTT, multitable a couple ring games while you are play the MTT. If you hit the final table you will have a very good ROI, but if you dont, you are still making money in the rings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, diverting your attention will hurt your ROI in any particular tourney. However, it may increase your overall hourly rate.

[PrayingMantis]

*BUMP* (and this is not even MY thread...)

I think this is actually one of the most important questions one can ask about MTTs in general (as it is obviously very important for any other kind of poker), so although I think any definite answer is probably wrong as I said in a reply here (again - with ths statistical information we have), I still would be very interested to read more opinions on this subject.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
*BUMP* (and this is not even MY thread...)

I think this is actually one of the most important questions one can ask about MTTs in general (as it is obviously very important for any other kind of poker), so although I think any definite answer is probably wrong as I said in a reply here (again - with ths statistical information we have), I still would be very interested to read more opinions on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you completely, Mantis. I've always assumed my ROI is 2X buy-in, but that is just a number I use. In actuallity, I have no idea. There was a post a few months back that examined the impossibility of determining ROI (because you need some several million tourneys played AT THE SAME LEVEL). Also, if you are constantly improving, your ROI is changing. Of course, if you ask, what is your ROI (as a poker player) by entering this tourney? The answer is -reg. fee. Usually -7% to -20%. I think it is important to remember that. Also, remember that people who say 2-4X buy-in are the successful players who have done well in MTTs. We don't hear from the successful players (GOOD players) who, thanks to variance, have lost in MTTs.

BTW: the Mercury Mariner Girl is freaking HOT!!!

[HonchoOverload]

I have kept a spreadsheet of data on my tourneys since I started playing exclusively MTTs in March...I think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) and I will try to extrapolate some data from that and post it here

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
I have kept a spreadsheet of data on my tourneys since I started playing exclusively MTTs in March...I think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) and I will try to extrapolate some data from that and post it here

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this data means NOTHING!!! Personally, psychologically, it matters, but ONE tourney can completely skew your data (witness: yours truely). Seriously, think about it. If you play nothing but 400-man tournies that cost $100... You'll need to play that tourney some 400,000 times to come close to real ROI. 40,000 might give you a good feel though....

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have kept a spreadsheet of data on my tourneys since I started playing exclusively MTTs in March...I think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) and I will try to extrapolate some data from that and post it here

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this data means NOTHING!!! Personally, psychologically, it matters, but ONE tourney can completely skew your data (witness: yours truely). Seriously, think about it. If you play nothing but 400-man tournies that cost $100... You'll need to play that tourney some 400,000 times to come close to real ROI. 40,000 might give you a good feel though....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying this is completely accurate, but there is value in some approximation.

[HonchoOverload]

also, my % ITM has remained relatively constant since the first month...I'm not sure how relevant that ends up being in terms of ROI, but it has some value, no?

[CardSharpCook]

OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT.

CSC

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT.

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though /images/graemlins/blush.gif I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT.

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though /images/graemlins/blush.gif I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your stats are insanely good. No one in this forum has better stats than this. Clear evidence of short-term variance.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT.

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though /images/graemlins/blush.gif I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your stats are insanely good. No one in this forum has better stats than this. Clear evidence of short-term variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I would agree. There's just no [censored] way I'll probably ever FT 7 times in 7 days again.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. 150+ is absolutely nothing in terms of sample size for the question asked here. For instance, if you know anything about SNGs (sit-and-gos), where variance is much much much (add a few more of them) lower than on MTTs, 150 games is practically a laughable sample size. Some people are playing these amount of SNGs A DAY. Only when you get to few K of SNGs you start to get an accurate enough picture of your "true" ROI. It doesn't mean that after few hundreds you can't tell whether you're a winning player, but even the best players can run very very cold for few hundreds SNGs and only break even or so.

Now MTTS are much much more volatile, that's why 150+ tourneys sample is, no offence, ridiculous, if you want to come to any meaningful conclusions about your ROI, or ROI in general.

Edit: and that's why it's a very tough question.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. 150+ is absolutely nothing in terms of sample size for the question asked here. For instance, if you know anything about SNGs (sit-and-gos), where variance is much much much (add a few more of them) lower than on MTTs, 150 games is practically a laughable sample size. Some people are playing these amount of SNGs A DAY. Only when you get to few K of SNGs you start to get an accurate enough picture of your "true" ROI. It doesn't mean that after few hundreds you can't tell whether you're a winning player, but even the best players can run very very cold for few hundreds SNGs and only break even or so.

Now MTTS are much much more volatile, that's why 150+ tourneys sample is, no offence, ridiculous, if you want to come to any meaningful conclusions about your ROI, or ROI in general.

Edit: and that's why it's a very tough question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what number do you think would be a valid sample size?

150 STTs a day? Ten-tabling for 14 hours a day? That seems to be a bit beyond reasonable limits...