would you rather get 3rd or 10th

[roma12]

say in the 800 chips on party

ROI /hourly rate wise

[bluefeet]

all 3rds is a little easier on the BR than all 10th's, yes?

[microbet]

My ROI in the 800 chip games is 442% so 3rd place is a waste. I'd rather have 10th.

[cleinen]

maybe he meant 4th or 10th????

[roma12]

no i meant 3rd or 10th.

and i know it would "hurt the brain", but ROI and hourly rate speaking, i dont think its an obvious answer

[KingDan]

Getting 3rd is not worth my time.

When I am not the chipleader inthe first 15 hands, I post and fold.

[1C5]

3rd

[Mr_Oog]

3rd, without a doubt. Because almost every time I have come in tenth it is because I did something insufferably dumb.
-Mike

[Deuce2High]

3rd, and it's not even close. Do you see why?

[roma12]

ok you really dont see what im asking

[cleinen]

Well 3rd will help your ROI more than 10th and it will also help hourly rate more than 10th.

[Annulus]

[ QUOTE ]
no i meant 3rd or 10th.

and i know it would "hurt the brain", but ROI and hourly rate speaking, i dont think its an obvious answer

[/ QUOTE ]

its not even close. 3rd beats 10th by a mile you no matter how you slice it.

[roma12]

[ QUOTE ]
3rd, and it's not even close. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe so but i didnt feel like takign the time to do any math right now

[citanul]

a tournament finish of 3rd gives you almost a full buyin in profit. if that's not worth your time even hourly rate wise, you need to rethink playing sngs. if you think that this is a bit silly, go look at a finish distribution of a winning player, and check out what their ROI would be if you threw out all their 3rd places.

citanul

[Mr_Oog]

Oh no, I see what you are asking. However, my answer still stands.
-Mike

[roma12]

[ QUOTE ]
look at a finish distribution of a winning player, and check out what their ROI would be if you threw out all their 3rd places.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i know the ROI would go down...obviously... but would the rate go up at all

[cleinen]

i just looked at my sheet and in the last 328 games i have gotten 3rd 40 times. That is 800 bucks. So your asking do i want the 800 or nothing? I think your the one not doing the math.

[Nottom]

Obviously 10th ... can get another tourney started and get a lot more rakeback that way.

Think about all that rakeback if you could just get back-to-back-to-back 10ths all night.

[roma12]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously 10th ... can get another tourney started and get a lot more rakeback that way.

Think about all that rakeback if you could just get back-to-back-to-back 10ths all night.

[/ QUOTE ]

arent you a fuking comedian

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously 10th ... can get another tourney started and get a lot more rakeback that way.

Think about all that rakeback if you could just get back-to-back-to-back 10ths all night.

[/ QUOTE ]

arent you a fuking comedian

[/ QUOTE ]

My post is about as serious as your question.

[citanul]

i'm pretty sure that saccing the money in hopes of starting another tournament that you hope to finish higher than 3rd in is pretty silly, hourly rate wise. i mean, where do you draw the line? is 2nd good enough? a 2nd is only 2x as good as a 3rd...

but seriously, to do this more analytically would be pretty simple, but intuitively the answer should be (for any sane distribution of a winning player) clear.

my original question was because i think it's likely that many players who are slight winning players (maybe even those who are more than slight winning players) would become losing players ROI wise if they gave up all their 3rds for 10ths. if you have a -ROI, you can't have a +Hourly rate.

citanul

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously 10th ... can get another tourney started and get a lot more rakeback that way.

Think about all that rakeback if you could just get back-to-back-to-back 10ths all night.

[/ QUOTE ]

arent you a fuking comedian

[/ QUOTE ]

ha ha ha ha

you will last long here

[AceofSpades]

are you serious?

[cleinen]

[ QUOTE ]
my original question was because i think it's likely that many players who are slight winning players (maybe even those who are more than slight winning players) would become losing players ROI wise if they gave up all their 3rds for 10ths. if you have a -ROI, you can't have a +Hourly rate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dead on

[citanul]

no, he's not.

[bluefeet]

100 tourneys
20 1st's - %20 - @ 40min duration
10 2nd's - %10 - @ 40min duration
10 3rd's - %10 - @ 30min duration

10th's - @ 1min duration

IF your 1st and 2nd place finishes were independant of the number of 3rd's, then you could replace 10 3rd's with 10 10th's, netting you 290min -- thus time for 7 more 1st/2nd finishes (in theory). when a 1st is 3x more valuable than a 3rd, an additional 4+ 1sts and 3+ 2nds will earn you more than the original 10 3rd's. [EDIT: DAMMIT!! i suck at math....7 'or so' more tournies, only 2-or-so more 1st's or 2nd's......please disregard. me&my open mind. giant crayon scribbles all about the post...nothing to see here, move along Ps. i hate you.

is that what you're thinking?

of course not knowing during the first shuffle that you are beginning one of your '3rd' games, makes it all quite pointless. but if the poker gods where to ask it a different way....

"i'll trade you all of your 3rd's for 10th's, giving you the extra time to earn more 1st's and 2nd's at your current rate..."

then yes, not so bad (assuming your ITM distribution justifies 'the deal')

-- go back to the tables. you're giving me a headache! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FlyWf]

That breaks down because you won't 1st or 2nd every "gained" SnG. In your 290 gained minutes you'll play around 12 extra SNGs(increasing buyin from 1100 to 1232 assuming 10 player $10+1s), and at your usual rates you'll snag 2.4 1sts, 1.2 2nds, and 1.2 thirds. I'll give you 3 more firsts and 1 2nd and 1 third cause I'm just that nice.

So you're trading 10 3rds(+90) for 3 firsts(+87), 1 2nd(+19), 1 3rd(+9), and 17 losses(-187). Do the math, and would you rather make $400 or $268 in your day?

And that's a very good player who finishes first over 20% of the time(36% ROI). It would take an unrealistically successful player to accept the deal. (or an unrealistically high rakeback)

[bluefeet]

agreed agreed - read 'suck at math' /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[PITTM]

wow, i havent read the sng forum in like a year and i come back and this is the first post i read? sweeeeet jesus. i understand your point, but as another poster said, you cant really choose before hand, making it a moot point, and if you can choose at the beginning i think we would all take third. thanks for the laughs though...

rj

[buddybudrow]

3rd = 82% ROI
10th = -100% ROI

I'll settle for 3rd

[USCSigma1097]

Dammit Citanul...

I post "who would win a heads up STT between Raptor and Mike Ditka?" and you take it off immediately...and yet you let this nonsense be discussed. You should be flamed.

Sigma

[citanul]

i didn't come close to taking it off immediately. i gave you several hours to ask pokerstars support your question and get back to us with an answer, and you didn't.

this guys question at least seems to have something to do with the subject matter of the forum. and hell, he may actually be confused or something.

citanul

[benza13]

No kidding, huh. I only opened the thread because I couldn't believe people would discuss this topic for 30 posts already so I had to see what was going on. Now, after reading it, I am continuing to waste my life by replying to it /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[rvg72]

On Party with the current game durations and prize structure then it is pretty obvious that 3rd is better but theoretically his question could make sense under different conditions...

If it took 100 times longer to come in 3rd place than 10th place and / or if 3rd place only gave you 10 or 15% of the pot and/or you dominate the level to a point where you finish in 1st or 2nd 50% of the time etc...

If 3rd place only gave you back your entry price - rake and it took say 90 minutes to get to the final 3 would you now rather come in 3rd or bust out in the first hand with your KK set against an AA set? Obviously these aren't real conditions but the obvious answer to the OP's question does become a little blurred.

But back to reality - I'll take 3rd.

[SammyKid11]

I can't believe anyone has even attempted serious answers to this crap. I'm brand spanking new to all this and here's my answer:
Would you rather spend all night shagging the hell out of an above-average girl...or spend 30 seconds having Lara Croft kick you in the junk as hard as she can?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
On Party with the current game durations and prize structure then it is pretty obvious that 3rd is better but theoretically his question could make sense under different conditions...

If it took 100 times longer to come in 3rd place than 10th place and / or if 3rd place only gave you 10 or 15% of the pot and/or you dominate the level to a point where you finish in 1st or 2nd 50% of the time etc...

If 3rd place only gave you back your entry price - rake and it took say 90 minutes to get to the final 3 would you now rather come in 3rd or bust out in the first hand with your KK set against an AA set? Obviously these aren't real conditions but the obvious answer to the OP's question does become a little blurred.

But back to reality - I'll take 3rd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If getting third was that bad, I probably wouldn't play SNGs.

[ClaytonN]

I don't understand, I would much rather get a 5th place

You guys are all racists

[adanthar]

I know when I woke up today the first thing I thought of was 'hmm, I'm taking too many thirds, I think from now on I'll just consult the third place pattern mapper and finish tenth every time.'

This is a great question that is sure to add to all of our poker knowledge for years to come.

[roma12]

Well. im glad that alot of you took this post as one of the very few times where you can actually feel like a good player compared to others, replying instead of posting questions yourselves. "um are you serious...are you dumb..."...wow, you are so smart to realize that you should not take 10th as opposed to 3rd. When i posted this, i knew it was a silly question but atleast interesting...hence why i didnt take the time to do any calculations. the strange thing is, that this post had a million replies very quickly, and some of which math was actually done. it was a curious post, not one where i was actually considering trying to avoid third places.

thanks for some decent, serious responses from some good players

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
ok you really dont see what im asking

[/ QUOTE ]

i /images/graemlins/heart.gif this post. dysw?

[Mr_J]

3rd. 10th doesn't always mean you bustout early, could mean busting out 30mins into the tourney. The increased turnover won't make up for lack of 3rds.

I would love it though of all my OTMs where in 10th place. Imagine the turnover there, 25 tournies an hr...

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I would love it though of all my OTMs where in 10th place. Imagine the turnover there, 25 tournies an hr...

[/ QUOTE ]

ooo...that would be hot. I must have been trying for that last night, since I finished tenth TWICE in like 6 tourneys.