Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[raptor517]

only prolly need like 50 bucks, should be fine if yer good at all.. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
kthx mike jones

[/ QUOTE ]

who? holla

[Shilly]

TWO EIGHT ONE, THREE THREE OH, EIGHT ZERO ZERO FOU!

[valenzuela]

Im guessing "mike jones" is the OP name

[DaveKForty7]

Mike Jones. Who? Mike Jones. I said. Mike Jones.

$50's probably fine.

Just FYI, I like these games a lot. I screwed around with them for a little bit. The players are horrible, and they're fun to play because they're so incredibly player dependent. In 300 I had a 30% ROI (small sample, I know, but I think it's very doable longterm), so they're nice to play and the $/table-hour is much bigger than for 10-person $5.50s. You can't multitable though, so they're not nearly as profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
$50's probably fine.

Just FYI, I like these games a lot. I screwed around with them for a little bit. The players are horrible, and they're fun to play because they're so incredibly player dependent. In 300 I had a 30% ROI (small sample, I know, but I think it's very doable longterm), so they're nice to play and the $/table-hour is much bigger than for 10-person $5.50s. You can't multitable though, so they're not nearly as profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 300 games is probably quite a nice sample size for HU matches.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$50's probably fine.

Just FYI, I like these games a lot. I screwed around with them for a little bit. The players are horrible, and they're fun to play because they're so incredibly player dependent. In 300 I had a 30% ROI (small sample, I know, but I think it's very doable longterm), so they're nice to play and the $/table-hour is much bigger than for 10-person $5.50s. You can't multitable though, so they're not nearly as profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 300 games is probably quite a nice sample size for HU matches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's still significant variance at this scale.

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's still significant variance at this scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this suggest significant variance?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this suggest significant variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the first 150 he had a 15% ROI, and in the 2nd 150 he had a 45% ROI, thats a pretty big change?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's sti
ll significant variance at this scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this suggest significant variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ROI for first 150 was ~15%. My ROI then was ~45% over the next 150. That's variance.

[mmmmmbrother]

you can play at least 2 of these at once.
the 4 person headsup matches are better i think.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's sti
ll significant variance at this scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this suggest significant variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ROI for first 150 was ~15%. My ROI then was ~45% over the next 150. That's variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you got better /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's sti
ll significant variance at this scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this suggest significant variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ROI for first 150 was ~15%. My ROI then was ~45% over the next 150. That's variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you got better /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. That's actual very possible... if you win these 60% of the time, your ROI is ~15%. If you win 70%, of the time, it's ~35%. Not sure if it's realistic to say that I jumped from ~60% to ~75% chance of winning.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
you can play at least 2 of these at once.
the 4 person headsup matches are better i think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ROI will be, generally speaking, higher, but so will your variance - so your bankroll needs to be very solid.

I think thats right anyway, i cant be arsed to get the calculator out however.

Phill