A post to put all of your results in to perspective...

[Mr_J]

I'm played around 1900 sngs since jan this year.
Around 1350 of these are 22s.
Around 500 are $33s.
And maybe 40 $55s.

Overall, I have:
12.5% ROI at the $22s.
0% at the $33s
-38% at the $55s

I KNOW the reasons I have run poorly. It hasn't come from getting involved too much early, or being too conservative or too aggressive shorthanded. I'm not a perfect player, but I KNOW where my skill level is at, and KNOW I'm quite a bit better than these results suggest. So before any of you complain about your latest -30 buyin drop, please remember there are some who are much more unlucky and run thousands of sngs WELL below EV.

I'd happily take a 50 buyin drop every week if it meant I could hit EV every 1k sngs.

[Nick B.]

Have you beaten the $3 level before. This doesn't appear to be a variance. If I were you, I would take a closer look to see if you can beat the higher levels. Don't think that because you are beating the game for 12ROI on the 22's that will carry up.

[Mr_J]

"Have you beaten the $3 level before. This doesn't appear to be a variance. If I were you, I would take a closer look to see if you can beat the higher levels. Don't think that because you are beating the game for 12ROI on the 22's that will carry up."

These results have nothing to do with my skill. I've run very poorly over alot of sngs. I know what it looks like, but that's why I'm posting it (to show people how poorly you can run, and to show that maybe they're not so unlucky after all).

[Mr_J]

Forgot to add, I'm much better than 12% at the $22s.

[citanul]

just for references sake, you should probably post your total 22s stats for prior to this year.

citanul

[Ryendal]

Well I experienced such bad run last month.
I could'nt believe it. every day I was playing, I made 0/4 in the first 4 games. sometimes 0/8.

Finally when I look at my stats it was exactly a 0% ROI at the 33$ on 350 games. It so weird when your friends can't believe you on the importance of the variance. Half they believe you, half they think you don't play so well, after all !


But I can say that this bad run helped me to work the game.
Without it I would be weaker than now. I am almost happy to be well aware of that, while it wasn't so important to get some money.

I have decided to be a pro, and have still about one year to get a good level. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Mr_J]

These results are a little biased though. My $22 ROI a week ago was 21% over nearly 1k sngs, and has only dropped to 12% thanks to a 41 buyin drop (over the last 7 days).

My $33 ROI is low because I quit them at (what was probally near the end) of my first bad run.

$55s ROI is poor simply because of unlucky 4-5 handed.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
KNOW the reasons I have run poorly. It hasn't come from getting involved too much early, or being too conservative or too aggressive shorthanded. I'm not a perfect player, but I KNOW where my skill level is at, and KNOW I'm quite a bit better than these results suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, you know nothing at all. you have under 3k games played even with yer other results. you could be a losing player running well. what i see, is that its possible yer game is based upon beating the lower limits, and you dont know which adjustments need to be made to compete at the middle limit sngs. i have this problem too, as im barely above break even in the 215s, and losing money in the steps.. my game is beating hte 55s and 109s massive multitabling, and i should just stick to it. holla

[Mr_J]

"you could be a losing player running well"

Irie would have told me if I was no good when I got coaching. I have a solid understanding of sng theory and most of the HHs posted here a pretty clear.

"hat i see, is that its possible yer game is based upon beating the lower limits"

Actually my game was based upon beating $33s. When I got coaching from Irie this is the level I was playing. I only started playing $22s after I had the breakeven 450 $33s.

I do know why I've run badly, first at the $33s (I ran well then hit a 40 buyin losin streak) and now at the $22s (40 buyin drop over the last week). I know I've played decently, and I know I have decent skill. I've just run poor.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
"you could be a losing player running well"

Irie would have told me if I was no good when I got coaching. I have a solid understanding of sng theory and most of the HHs posted here a pretty clear.

"hat i see, is that its possible yer game is based upon beating the lower limits"

Actually my game was based upon beating $33s. When I got coaching from Irie this is the level I was playing. I only started playing $22s after I had the breakeven 450 $33s.

I do know why I've run badly, first at the $33s (I ran well then hit a 40 buyin losin streak) and now at the $22s (40 buyin drop over the last week). I know I've played decently, and I know I have decent skill. I've just run poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

you cant blame running poorly forever.. must be somethign to it. double the amount played, then see where yer at. you could turn that 0% into 20%. holla

[astarck]

While knowing your game and sticking to it is fine, I do have a problem with it. It never allows any room for improvment. Taking shots at higher levels does allow you to eventually adjust (along with lots of reading/studying/practicing/etc).

If making quick cash or never advancing is your goal, then staying put is more than fine.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgot to add, I'm much better than 12% at the $22s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you're really a 20% player at the 22's. Over 1350 SnGs, you have about a 3% chance of running this bad.

Just a random fact that you can interpret as you will.

eastbay

[Mr_J]

Ok, so far the responses to this thread are that maybe I'm not a winning player, or at least not much of one. I posted this because I know with 100% certainty, that I'm at least a decent winning player for $33s and below, and that it IS possible to run this poorly over a large sample.

There will be some people here who have been running hot for quite a while. I remember degen had 1k+ $33s with a 30%ish ROI. Curtains hit 36% at the $215s over 700 sngs, etc etc etc. We all know 500 sngs is nothing. 1k doesn't really mean that much. Is it so absurd that a decent player could run so poorly over 1800-1900 sngs? It really isn't, considering the effect a 40 buyin swing had on my previous 1k $22 results.

Look. After 1k $22s I had 21% ROI. The fact that just a 42ish buyin drop causes a drop a 8% or whatever drop in ROI just shows how little a 1k sng sample is.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so far the responses to this thread are that maybe I'm not a winning player, or at least not much of one. I posted this because I know with 100% certainty, that I'm at least a decent winning player for $33s and below, and that it IS possible to run this poorly over a large sample.

There will be some people here who have been running hot for quite a while. I remember degen had 1k+ $33s with a 30%ish ROI. Curtains hit 36% at the $215s over 700 sngs, etc etc etc. We all know 500 sngs is nothing. 1k doesn't really mean that much. Is it so absurd that a decent player could run so poorly over 1800-1900 sngs? It really isn't, considering the effect a 40 buyin swing had on my previous 1k $22 results.

Look. After 1k $22s I had 21% ROI. The fact that just a 42ish buyin drop causes a drop a 8% or whatever drop in ROI just shows how little a 1k sng sample is.

[/ QUOTE ]

who are u trying to convince? holla

[Mr_J]

I've run into plenty of these sorts of situations.

What is the chance that a 55% capper I follow loses 20 units at the beginning of a season? What is the chance that a friend misses 2 weeks of betting were my picks go 18-1? What is the chance that I miss posting my picks at ssb (a website) for those 2 weeks? What is the chance that I miss posting twice as many wins as losses? What is the chance that all the sports I bet on lose at the same time yet all finish the season as comfortable winners? What is the chance that I start betting just as a handicapper runs poorly? I could go on and on.

I have no doubts about my skill. I don't think I'm gods gift or anything, just that I'm a good player for my stakes.

You say 3%? This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That means 3 people for every 100 on this forum will run this poorly. Maybe I'm just unlucky enough to be one of those people.

[Mr_J]

I'm just trying to point out that this could be variance, and noone replying to the thread seems to accept this as a reasonable possibility.

[raptor517]

i duno man.. i know this last post was directed at easty, but it really really really sounds to me like you are trying to convince YOURSELF. right now, instead of doing that.. i challenge you to pick 4 HHs that you have a win in. no1 thinks to look at the HHs they won.. but these are most important. look at the hands u doubled up on, look at the steals you were making.. were they correct? did u get lucky to win? its not about results. pick apart your game tongiht. it will make you a better player. holla

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

You say 3%? This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That means 3 people for every 100 on this forum will run this poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.

eastbay

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
i duno man.. i know this last post was directed at easty, but it really really really sounds to me like you are trying to convince YOURSELF. right now, instead of doing that.. i challenge you to pick 4 HHs that you have a win in. no1 thinks to look at the HHs they won.. but these are most important. look at the hands u doubled up on, look at the steals you were making.. were they correct? did u get lucky to win? its not about results. pick apart your game tongiht. it will make you a better player. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I always look at the hand histories that I won when I am running bad.

[astarck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You say 3%? This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That means 3 people for every 100 on this forum will run this poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

3% also means that out of every 100 people 3 of them will try to teach you what 3% means. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I will only say this once in my lifetime...

PWNED.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You say 3%? This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That means 3 people for every 100 on this forum will run this poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

oh god it hurts so good.. ROTFLMFAO HOLLA SHIP IT BATCH BWAHHAHA> nh easty. holla

[astarck]

[ QUOTE ]
ROTFLMFAO HOLLA SHIP IT BATCH BWAHHAHA> nh easty. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually sat out of some of my tables I was in because I'm not quite skillful enough to ROTFLMFAO while playing. One day I'd like to aquire this skill. I hear 3% of the population can do this (for those of you that don't know, that is 3 out of 100.)

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Look. After 1k $22s I had 21% ROI. The fact that just a 42ish buyin drop causes a drop a 8% or whatever drop in ROI just shows how little a 1k sng sample is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems as if you are putting a higher significance on this 1k sample than your current 1.9k sample (if that is what you base the "I know I am a better player than this" reasoning on). Perhaps you ran well initially but the game has changed which has cut into your profits (the new level 5, opponents adjusting to the pushing etc).

While of course this 1.9k sample doesn't have to be identical to your true ROI, I can't imagine your true ROI many times higher than this ROI is (~6%) given this distibution of levels. I think it is unlikely it is even twice that.

That said, my last 1000 SnGs has an ROI that is 10%-units higher than my first 1000 SnGs. Of course I played much worse poker back then so I suspect that eats up a big chunk of the difference rather than variance.

[Mr_J]

I don't base my skill on results. I don't think I'm a ~20% $22er because I hit 21% there. I felt my skill level at the $33s before coaching was ~15%, and irieguy even estimated this, and this was BEFORE I got coaching and had just 50 sngs under my belt. I also seem to be at the same skill level as other people making about the same.

Ok, I was very inexperienced so my guess could be wrong. Iries guess of 15% could be wrong, but I doubt it's far off.

I've already have this debate before. I'm definately 15%+ longterm at the $22s.

6% is for all my sngs. I've got around 12-13% for my $22s. It's not unrealistic that a a 15%+ $22er could run at 12-13% over 1300.

[Mr_J]

Last post in this thread. You can say what you will, but I'm not a sub 15% player at the $22s. I'm not a breakeven player at the $33s, and I'm not a losing player at the $55s. I've run poorly over a large sample. Just because this is unlikely for a decent player doesn't mean it won't happen to someone. The idea of my original post was to show that prolonged bad runs can happen (well it's mainly be steady profit mixed with a few ugly runs). I'll leave it at that.

[astarck]

You just replied to yourself saying the same thing.

[astarck]

You just replied to yourself saying the same thing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Nick B.]

/images/graemlins/spade.gif= /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[FieryJustice]

I am not a 7% $215er either...the cards just dont like me.

[45suited]

This thread got me thinking...

I have an idea for casting of a remake of an old comedy classic... Eastbay could play Mary Swanson and Mr J could play Lloyd Christmas:


Lloyd Christmas: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas: Not good like one in a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one in a million.

Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[WarDekar]

Not entirely sure if this has been discussed or not before, but don't you think it's possible SNG results don't follow a normal distribution? Truly you don't believe it's as simple as you've stated above.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely sure if this has been discussed or not before, but don't you think it's possible SNG results don't follow a normal distribution? Truly you don't believe it's as simple as you've stated above.

[/ QUOTE ]

My calculation assumes nothing about distributions, normal or otherwise.

What it does assume is stationarity of the underlying process on a relevant timescale. Sue me.

eastbay

[yeau2]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm definately 15%+ longterm at the $22s.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't say that.

[awr000]

Look at the big brain on brad....


been waiting to use that line /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Irieguy]

Well, Mr J's game is at least twice as good as other $22ers whom i've seen post 20% ROIs over whatever number of SNGs.

But it doesn't really matter... he was just trying to illustrate that a good player can run really poorly. But that's a futile illustration on this forum for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that everybody will assume that poor results are due to poor play when somebody posts them. It's human nature; nobody wamts to believe that a good player can do poorly for very long.

Eastbay had the most poignant post in this thread: there's a 3% chance that Mr J is simply unlucky over that sample size if he is "really" a 20% ROI player.

The problem is that 3% is perceived as a small number. Mr J makes his exclusive living off of wagering on games that have large components of chance. He will lose to a 3% event hundreds of times a year because he is making tens of thousands of wagers.

People tend to underestimate the size of the pool from which they may pluck events that can be considered unlucky.

If I see a patient who is pregnant, has diabetes, and also has sickle cell anemia I don't spend the rest of the day contemplating with awe how unbelievably unlucky she is... or how unlucky I was to have come across something like this. If you look at the incidence of these conditions and then calculate how likely it is that a single person will have all 3 at the same time... the odds are more than a million to 1 against.

It's a very challenging task to evaluate a fabricated collection of data and then assign meaning to fabricated metrics that can be statistically extracted from that collection of data. It becomes even more difficult when you attach arbitrary characterizations to the metrics:

Result A for metric A means you are "good"
Result B for metric A means you are "bad"

Mr J is a winning player, and over a large number of SNGs he won money. That is an expected outcome. The details and magnitudes should not be mindblowing within that basic framework.

This is why Eastbay's comment is so great. He says "there is a 3% chance that results X can be due luck..." and the dialogue immediately reverts to whether that means that somebody sucks or not.

Irieguy

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you know what 3% means /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'd like to know the chance that an 17-23% player will go 12%ish over 1300 sngs.

Don't mean to come across as someone who thinks they are gods gift etc, just confident that I am a better player than my results reflect.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you just explain to me what 3% means? Just checking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you know what 3% means /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'd like to know the chance that an 17-23% player will go 12%ish over 1300 sngs.

Don't mean to come across as someone who thinks they are gods gift etc, just confident that I am a better player than my results reflect.

[/ QUOTE ]

X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[WarDekar]

My point was, whether I stated it correctly or not, is that even what it says can't necessarily be taken at face value. We don't always play the same way from SNG to SNG, or from 500 SNG block to 500 SNG block.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was, whether I stated it correctly or not, is that even what it says can't necessarily be taken at face value. We don't always play the same way from SNG to SNG, or from 500 SNG block to 500 SNG block.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to, as long as the variation is fast enough to wash out.

The OP is talking about his confidence in "his skill level" which seems to indicate he has a pretty well formulated game. He's not talking about playing bad, or tilting, or what happened when he tried to adjust or play a new style. So it's not crazy to think his game is reasonably stationary.

The only other thing which can move here is the player pool, and I just don't buy that the player pool moves significantly over the times of interest here.

So I stand by my estimate, and challenge you to produce a better one.

eastbay

[WarDekar]

I don't know about you, but I think my own personal level of play varies from day to day, mood to mood. If I'm emotionally distraught and hit a cooler, I'm likely to start playing worse. If I'm in a better mood, I'm certainly more likely to concentrate. I definitely believe that some of my worst downswings have been directly related to tilting, whether I was willing to admit it at the time or not.

It's tough for someone to say that they were tilting, or playing worse than normal, but that's our nature.

I do agree though that we really have no better estimate, I'm merely stating that we don't always play at one constant level.

[The Don]

After 1350 you have a damn good sense of where you're at. You COULD be running bad but it is far more likely that there are some big leaks which prevent you from being in the 20% range. I am 22.5% after 1600 $22s in the past 3 months and I'm sure I have played with you a bit over that time period. I try to keep mini bios on other known 8 tablers at the $22s and $33s (primarily noting any leaks I see). PM me with your party nicks and I will let you know if there is anything I have noticed.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but I think my own personal level of play varies from day to day, mood to mood. If I'm emotionally distraught and hit a cooler, I'm likely to start playing worse. If I'm in a better mood, I'm certainly more likely to concentrate. I definitely believe that some of my worst downswings have been directly related to tilting, whether I was willing to admit it at the time or not.

It's tough for someone to say that they were tilting, or playing worse than normal, but that's our nature.

I do agree though that we really have no better estimate, I'm merely stating that we don't always play at one constant level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily matter if you play at one level for the estimate to be accurate. What matters is how fast the variation is in relation to the sampling time. If it's a day-long thing, it won't matter. If it's a month long thing, it might.

So we're agreeing in principle, I just think you may be over-estimating a little the degree to which this kind of thing erodes the value of the estimate.

I certainly don't mean 3% as in not 2.9% and not 3.1%. A factor of two in either direction isn't going to give me cause to throw out the method.

eastbay

[45suited]

Just a general comment, please correct me if I'm wrong:

It seems that there is a bias on this forum towards not accepting good results, even when they cover 1000+ games, but at the same time poor results are so often glossed over as just variance or bad luck.

I understand that even 1000+ games is still relatively small in the big picture, but it still starts to give a general idea in most cases as to the level of your play. Short of having an expert player review your HHs, that's pretty much all you have to rely on.

Don't get me wrong. There's no shame whatsoever if Mr J is a 12% ROI performer at the 22s. But in the absence of other evidence, it seems silly to say that his first 1000 games represented his "true" ROI while the last 900 were an abberation.

I don't pretend to be a mathematician, but Eastbay's 3% estimate seems reasonable. And I do agree with Irie that 3% is not an incredibly small number, but we see SO MANY of these "running bad" threads that at a certain point, I think that people are doing themselves a disservice if they continually chalk up results that they are not happy with to a run of poor luck.

That's all from me... now back to the smart guys. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[raptor517]

just so everyone knows.. in the 55s, i track in sets of 750. over 750, ive had a 2% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a .3% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a 27% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a 29.5% roi in the 55s. variance is fun. takes a while to iron it out. keep grindin. holla

[Mr_J]

"There's no shame whatsoever if Mr J is a 12% ROI performer at the 22s"

Yes there is!!!!

"I understand that even 1000+ games is still relatively small in the big picture, but it still starts to give a general idea in most cases as to the level of your play."

I agree. There are a few reasons that I believe I'm better than 12% though:

1. expert player review your HHs = Irie

2. I seem to understand sng theory better than most lower limits players here (obviously IMO), and feel more on par with the better $33ers and the $55ers. Remember that while I haven't played as many sngs, I have read this forum (HHs, theory posts etc) for as long as many of those players.

3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

Ok, we know there's a 3% chance that a 20% player will run at 12% after 1300 sngs. What is the chance a 12% player will run 21% over his first 1000 sngs? Any sample we take is really just a slice of the pie. To really have an idea of where I'm at (if we only look at results), then I'll need to play a few thousand more $22s.

"It seems that there is a bias on this forum towards not accepting good results, even when they cover 1000+ games, but at the same time poor results are so often glossed over as just variance or bad luck."

I agree with the first part. Now if we prefer samples larger than 1k for a good ROI, why is 1300 enough for a bad one? Obiously it isn't. If the forum isn't happy with a 1k good run, then they shouldn't be happy with a 1k bad run. Poor results obviously aren't glossed over as bad luck, or else I wouldn't have responded to half these posts /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mr_J]

I think the reason your results would be more acceptable (ie put down to variance) is that your overall sample is much larger. It UNLIKELY that someone will run as poorly as I have early on, where as it's inevitable if you play as many as you have.

Then of course there's the fact that you have 5500 sngs at 18% at the $55s alone...but your samples do show how annoying variance can be. I'll give an update after another 1500 sngs (a month) or if my ROI climbs back up to over 20% (it might lol).

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is me at 1:40 am and really quite not all here right now and all, but the above seems like really, really, really, really, bad statistics. This should, I think, be INCREDIBLY obvious. And, you should, I think, be entirely ashamed for having written something like that.

citanul

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
we know there's a 3% chance that a 20% player will run at 12% after 1300 sngs. What is the chance a 12% player will run 21% over his first 1000 sngs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you asked. 2%. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

If you're really 16%, then youre 15% to run hot at 21% and and 17% to run cold at 12%. Are we having fun yet?

eastbay

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason your results would be more acceptable (ie put down to variance) is that your overall sample is much larger. It UNLIKELY that someone will run as poorly as I have early on, where as it's inevitable if you play as many as you have.

Then of course there's the fact that you have 5500 sngs at 18% at the $55s alone...but your samples do show how annoying variance can be. I'll give an update after another 1500 sngs (a month) or if my ROI climbs back up to over 20% (it might lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

as an aside.. not ONE of my sets of 750 has been within 3% of my ACTUAL roi. its usually around 10 or around 22+. thats how it works for some stupid rigged reason. holla

[inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[Mr_J]

Citanul the maths seems fine to me???

"Glad you asked. 2%.

If you're really 16%, then youre 15% to run hot at 21% and and 17% to run cold at 12%. Are we having fun yet? "

Heh. Forget the last bit, I'll just remember that I'm more likely to be a 20%er running cold than a 12%er running hot /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Can't we all just read Irie's post, acknowledge how good Irie wants me to think I am, and then put it down as variance?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time for a web app. This comes up a lot and it's kind of fun to play with.

I may have time for this tomorrow.

eastbay

[inyaface]

sweet thanks

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Citanul the maths seems fine to me???

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm hoping eastbay will chime in on this or something, but here goes, and then I'm sleeping, so I hope I make some semblance of sense on the first go round.

The point is that you can't just throw out results. You can't say "well I've played 1000 games, and my ROI was x, so the fact that my ROI is now y<x because I lost 42 buyins, well that means it's just like, in the next 900 games, going to even back out to around ROI = x."

You don't get to choose where your intervals end, it's all one big interval. If you've played 1000 games with ROI x and then the next 100 games drop your ROI to y, your ROI is y. It might not be your "true" ROI, if there is such a thing, but it is the statistic to be called ROI.

Particularly a player who has a small sample size just can't say that a run which dramaticly alters their overall ROI is just some kind of bump in the road. They are, after all, going to need quite a heater to bring their ROI back up to where they feel their "ROI" should be. You can't just assume that such a heater is in the waits. After all, you've never had a 1000 sng run that has been on such a heater /images/graemlins/smile.gif

now, 1000 22s at a 20% ROI means you made ~$4400. Dropping 42 buyins means you lost $924. That is neither an insignificant chunk of your winnings nor close to all of them. But I mean, even when looking at this number you can't honestly look and think "oh well, I'll get right back to my 20% ROI in just a sec" or something like that.

Actually, I guess that's kind of the point. Over the next 1000 sngs you play, if you're a 20% ROI guy, you expect to have a 20% ROI. Your next 1000 games results don't have any reason to make up for the last x games where you had your big drop, they just happen. Over the next 1000 games, you hopefully expect to make something like $4400. Not $5300. The big drop goes in the overall results, and later, when you have a big sample size, they'll still be there, sucking down the average. That's just the way it works.

citanul

[45suited]

I just shrug my shoulders and use Occam's Razor when analyzing my poker results. And I think that by doing so, I'm a lot closer to a true self evaluation than someone relying on a belief that they are one of the unlucky 3%.

You may well be better than 12%, but perhaps this seeming obsession is starting to affect your play. I'm serious about this.

[Mr_J]

"The point is that you can't just throw out results."

I didn't mean the point in that way. It was just an example. I just meant that if someone hits 20% over 1000, and then drops 42 buyins over 200 sngs, it doesn't mean that they're a 13%ROI player.

I didn't conclude that I'm a 21% player because I hit 21% over my first 1k $22s. Remember, I'm not the one who tried to draw any conclusions from my results (other people did). Hell, I made the OP just to show how significant variance can be, so I'm not about to try and draw any conclusions from a 1k sample.

I'm not results orientated, and have never estimated my skill level based on them. My estimate of 15% at the $33s before I got coaching was just a comparison to other players. Iries estimate just made me more sure of myself. I've subconciously used what I know, how I think about HHs and the results of other players here to get an idea of where I am at. Never even thought of just basing it on results.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean the point in that way. It was just an example. I just meant that if someone hits 20% over 1000, and then drops 42 buyins over 200 sngs, it doesn't mean that they're a 13%ROI player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand why that is wrong???? If somebody plays 1,000 sngs with a 20% ROI, then in the next 200 he has a 200 buyin upswing, does it mean he really is a 20% ROI player and not a 33%ROI like his results say?

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time for a web app. This comes up a lot and it's kind of fun to play with.

I may have time for this tomorrow.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be sweet as hell /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats taking it a bit too far. Everyone has downswings that pushes ROI downwards. I have in 3000 SnGs had one 40 Tourney downswing that lasted 500 games and I think five 20 buyin downswings. If I got to subtract them because they ruined my ROI and didn't show what kind of player I was, there is no way that this new shiny ROI would accurately represent the player I was.

No one here hasn't acknowledged that you may have run badly for a period of your play.

I have previously stated that I believe 10k tourneys is minimum before we talk about true ROI. That goes for you, me and the guy on the super heater. Before that we only have more or less good guesses. But I can guarantee you one thing. You will have several big downswings messing up your ROI before you hit 10k.

Of course you can improve your results over time. I have spent several months very slowly but surely diluting the bad results I had when starting out. If I was consciously trying to do it I would go insane because once you have a couple of thousand of SnGs even a week of winning doesn't make a big a dent in that lifetime ROI.

Anyway, who cares. I think it is only healthy that someone who is running badly is posting their ROI since most others only do it when running good.

[Mr_J]

You both misunderstood. I'll try to explain it more clearly:

" If somebody plays 1,000 sngs with a 20% ROI, then in the next 200 he has a 200 buyin upswing, does it mean he really is a 20% ROI player and not a 33%ROI like his results say?"

Obivously not. I'm saying that just because he is now at 33% ROI doesn't mean 33% is his true ROI.

Back to my example.

Just because someone was 20% over 1k, and now 13% over 1200, doesn't mean that their true ROI is 13%. It could be 13%, it could be 20%, it could be anything.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who cares. I think it is only healthy that someone who is running badly is posting their ROI since most others only do it when running good.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mr_J]

Read the part where citanul and nick B have replied. Maybe I didn't explain my original point very clearly since it's been mistunderstood by a few people.

I'll rewrite that point:

"3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run."

Reads:
1k sngs is not a significant sample, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Any decent swing affects ROI by quite a bit so it's impossible to estimate ROI based just on results.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Read the part where citanul and nick B have replied. Maybe I didn't explain my original point very clearly since it's been mistunderstood by a few people.

I'll rewrite that point:

"3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run."

Reads:
1k sngs is not a significant sample, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Any decent swing affects ROI by quite a bit so it's impossible to estimate ROI based just on results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what we reacted to. You seemed to draw the conclusion initially that your 'true ROI' was higher than the sample, simply because the downswing affected your ROI.

[astarck]

[ QUOTE ]
as an aside.. not ONE of my sets of 750 has been within 3% of my ACTUAL roi. its usually around 10 or around 22+. thats how it works for some stupid rigged reason. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker is rigged.

[Myst]

Thats why its important to play hours, not results.

The results will come given enough time, as long as you truly are a winning player.

[Al P]

If you quit playing SnG's today how could you claim "I was a 20% ROI player" when your ROI isn't 20% at the time you quit?

IF you play 1000 SNGs at a 20% ROI, then at the time the 1000th SNG was played you were at a 20% ROI (clearly.).

You don't seem to be getting what the others are trying to tell you. If you play 1000 more SNGs, and within those last 1000 you had a HUGE drop and your ROI was 10%.

After the 2000th SNG was played, according to statistics, you are a 15% ROI player. Don't you understand?

You can't section off the runs that you like and say "Thats my ROI!". That is called lying to yourself and it can really hurt your game. Downswings are a part of the calculation of your overall ROI, you have to include everything or the number means absolutly nothing.

Of course it is possible to run well below your "normal" ROI over a series of games. Sure. You got unlucky. Keep going and your real ROI will emerge at, say, 20,000 games.

Cheers

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
just for references sake, you should probably post your total 22s stats for prior to this year.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think he has any. in an earlier post (correct me if i'm wrong mr j) he said he started playing SNGs in Jan.

which is why this post is a circular argument. Mr J knows he's good. we don't know him so we can't confirm that. he doesn't have enough data to convince us that he really is good. so we have nowhere to go with this conversation. the average reader in this forum isn't going to believe his assertion about the quality of his play until he's got a few thousand SNGs to back it up, or until he posts comments about actual hands showing that he knows what he's taklking about. until that happens, his advice isn't considered to have any merit.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to point out that this could be variance, and noone replying to the thread seems to accept this as a reasonable possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree. most of us accept that it may be variance. the statement that is being objected to is your statement that you are 100% certain that you are a winner. this is because your statistical results alone are insufficient to make that claim, and we don't have access to any other information.

the fact that irie says you good is probably good enough. but unless irie has reviewed every one of your hand histories, even he doesn't KNOW that you don't go on tilt when you start losing, making you a losing player overall, for example. i'm not saying this is this is the case, obviously i have no idea. that's the point. None of us have any idea about your game other than your results, which are not enough to support your claim. that's just the end of the conversation until you can provide more data or until you start making comments about hands that are posting showing that you're really good because you can analyse the hands properly.

[PrayingMantis]

I don't understand this thread, seriously.

I don't understand your talk about "true ROI" or whatever, and your replies to the comments you get.

ROI is a very simple thing, it's your return on the investment for the games you have played. Your ROI for the $22 is a number, a fact. Either you know it or you don't, but if you don't, it's simply because you didn't keep a good enough record. If you don't know it for sure you can guess at it, nothing more.

If however, your ROI after playing (a lifetime number of) X SNGs is R%, and you, for some reason, claim that your "true ROI" is >R% since you've been running bad at those X SNGs, there's no way you can convince any one that it's true, and what's more - I suspect you don't understand what "running bad" means. Of course, it's possible that after 2X or 3X or NX SNGs your ROI will stable on a higher number than R, and only then you'll be able to judge whether you ran bad (or good) on some portions of your overall sample, but until that point you can't do that.

Bottom line: It simply doesn't make much sense, IMO, to claim that your "true ROI" is higher than your real ROI for your whole "career" (however short it is) as a SNG player. It's like saying that you are a better player than what your actual results show. Note that it MIGHT be true (due to very bad luck), but it will take a very strong player to go over A LOT (and I mean A LOT) of your games in order to say that. You can not say it about yourself, period.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this thread, seriously.

I don't understand your talk about "true ROI" or whatever, and your replies to the comments you get.


[/ QUOTE ]

He means expected value of ROI. Clearly this is not the same thing as a currently measured ROI.

The ROI EV is of course something which cannot be measured, so it's always a little dubious to make claims about what it is.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
He means expected value of ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, that's what I meant by "true ROI". My point is the same (and you seem to agree with it).

Making claims about one's own "EV of ROI", which is supposedly "higher" than one's measured lifetime ROI, is very problematic to say the least.