discussion of FAQ's ROI

[schwza]

there was a thread directing a new poster to the faq for an roi question, which made me actually read it. i think it was weak.

a partial quote:

[ QUOTE ]
A summary of what very good stats for the various stakes would be probably looks very much like this:

10+1s-30+3s, ITM ~42%, ROI ~30%
55s-215s, ITM ~40%, ROI ~20%


[/ QUOTE ]

this is really not very useful. you can have a way better roi for the 11's than the 33's or 55 v 215. are these for multi-tabling or single?

are there people who are only "very good" with a 30%+ play 4+ tables of 33s? what are the experts getting?

[Nicholasp27]

while discussing the FAQ's ROI,

i think there should be a separate thread titled 'ROI FAQ' that should be stickied under the main faq...anytime anybody wants to ask a question that they think the 'ROI FAQ' doesn't cover, they can post it in that thread

anytime somebody starts a new topic on ROI that is answered there, their post should be moved to that thread and their thread deleted

[Degen]

30% is obscene for the 33's

mine are under 20% now for a massive sample

[citanul]

have fun, write something up, it should include:

different sites: party, stars, ub, bodog, etc
different stakes $1 -> $1000
different numbers of tables: 1 - 12
different quality of players: bad -> world class
different numbers of seats: 6, 9, 10, possibly at the same site
different structures: turbo v regular, etc
different games: omaha, stud, limit, nl, pl, etc
different times of day
etc
etc
etc

when you finish your novel, let me know and i'll post it in the FAQ.

citanul

[citanul]

here's a very worthwhile post:

thanks L (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=3511755 &Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&M ain=3510340&Search=true&where=&Name=22&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post3511755)

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
have fun, write something up, it should include:

different sites: party, stars, ub, bodog, etc
different stakes $1 -> $1000
different numbers of tables: 1 - 12
different quality of players: bad -> world class
different numbers of seats: 6, 9, 10, possibly at the same site
different structures: turbo v regular, etc
different games: omaha, stud, limit, nl, pl, etc
different times of day
etc
etc
etc

when you finish your novel, let me know and i'll post it in the FAQ.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

this reply sucks.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a very worthwhile post:

thanks L (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=3511755 &Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&M ain=3510340&Search=true&where=&Name=22&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post3511755)

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, it's a good post. it doesn't really address my post.

hey cit, since you've decided to grace this thread with your mod-powered presence, what would be the best place for me to get started looking around the archives to put together some sort of "best of" faq? Im sick of hearing about this "legendary post" or that "well known guide" that a psychic couldnt find with the bass-ackwards search tool?

oh, and while we're at it, whom do I pm to ask about programming a new search engine?

[lorinda]

Using the search function is actually okay when you get used to it.

you need to remember to put + (that's a plus sign) in front of every word, otherwise it searches for anything with any one of your words in it.

If you're looking for a post with the words Gigabet and Irieguy, then searching for : Gigabet Irieguy (Just two words) would be a tragic error and you would get every thread with just Gigabet and/or Irieguy being mentioned.

If however you search for: +Gigabet +Irieguy (plus Gigabet plus Ireiguy) then you will probably get all the posts from the thread you were expecting.

If you search for: +Gigabet +Irieguy -re: (plus Gigabet plus Irieguy minus re colon) then it is entirely likely you will get just the one post you are looking for.

( I tried this for the last six months. The post I was thinking of is listed, along with a few others that are obviously on topic, but I hadn't remembered)

Lori

[Sabrazack]

I think it would be great for these and other searching tips to be put in the FAQ even though they have nothing to do with STT:s. Might help prevent some newbie posts.

[tshort]

FAQ: How do I use the [censored] search engine?

[lorinda]

Most of that is already in the FAQ by virtue of linking to my FAQ in internet gambling, which links to some posts on searching.

Hardly an awe inspiring set of links, but it is actually covered for those who read everything /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Lori

Lets assume for the sake of argument, that noobies wont read through all that (I did, on the sixth readthrough on the FAQ, waiting for someone to respond to my ill-timed witticism). I'd be willing to put together something concerning techniques for searching.

L, where else would I look, other than your post thats linked to a post thats linked to a post?

thanks for the help, btw...

[lorinda]

To be honest, I think that the post in this thread probably covers about 75% of everything ever written on the subject. I also haven't seen the other 25% (I don't take the credit for the -re: idea though, although sadly I forget who does)

Lori

[chisness]

a good start (which i wouldn't mind helping with) is:

site: party
stakes: $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, $200
tables: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12
quality: bad, ok, solid, very good, world class
type: nl only
time of day: evening/night vs. day and weekend vs. weekday

i think much of it should be approximations, but i think it's worth getting in very good approximations and using lots of data cause it can be very beneficial for everyone from newb to very experienced trying to figure out what's most profitable

edit: now that i think about it, i think general remarks about best times to play will be fine and that each level should be given an roi for OK, Very Good, and World Class levels at approximately 4 tables (most popular)

GENERAL remarks about how 4 extra tables drop approximately X at levels A-B and Y at levels C-D or how 2 fewer tables increase approximately certain amounts

to begin, i'd say for the $30s, 8% is OK, 15% is very good, and 20% is world class (by world class i don't mean unbeatable, but i mean only the top players on 2+2 could even hit it)

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
this reply sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but so does your original question.

citanul

[The Yugoslavian]

Your post is exceedingly silly.

Frankly, so is this whole thread.

Yugoslav
<font color="white">BOW DOWN!!!!</font>

[chisness]

it's overkill and unnecessary but would be useful

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this reply sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but so does your original question.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

this what i would like the faq to say:

assuming 4-tabling, these are roi's a very good player can attain:

6: __
11: __
22: __
.
.
.
109: __
215: __

this would be more useful than the current section, which is imprecise and (i think, and degen does too) inaccurate.

[chisness]

i agree that would be far more useful than than the current one

maybe we should start 7 threads to debate the amounts that should go in, including lots of stats from reasonably good players

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe we should start 7 threads

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious? that's way overkill.

[curtains]

For a "good player" the following ROis are good:

11s - 25% ROI
20s - 20% ROI
33s - 16% ROI
55s - 13% ROI
109s - 10% ROI
215s - 7% ROI


Of course I just made these up off the seat of my pants. Higher ROIs are attainable at every one of these levels, HOWEVER if you can acheive the above ROI's you are capable of making a good living at poker, especially if you can do so playing 8 at once.

Anyone who can acheive the above ROI's, while playing many tables at once, is a "good" player. They might not be great and may still have plenty of weaknesses, but they are definitely very good at what they do.

In short, if your ROI is higher than the above numbers, you are doing something right and should be relatively satisfied with your play. You may still have plenty of room to improve but you are definitely on the right track.

[citanul]

s,

you're missing my point.

i know exactly what you want the FAQ to read like, and it is reasonable, and i'm fine if you and degen want to say that they are unrealistic numbers.

my point of my original post was that everyone has somethign else they want the faq to look like, not just you. the stuff i put there (above) were just the tip of the iceberg wrt what people *want* the faq to have. the sum of the requests are totally unreasonable and frankly, stupid.

everyone also has a different place they want the line for "very good" player to be drawn.

personally, i don't really care.

the line i choose to draw in my mind is not the line for everyone, nor the line for where people should be shooting for, nor the line for what you should be beating yourself up over if you don't hit it.

it's the line for the very best. where are the attainable stats for 4 tablers, that's where i put my line. if you believe my stats that i listed are wrong, or that i should lay them out differently, i'm willing to listen to that, and very willing to change the format, or clarify what type of player should be thinking about these stats, or for what reason.

as has been pointed out, there's a link in the faq to a longer discussion about attainable stats. there's also approximately a million gillion other, and mostly lesser, posts on the subject.

if you think that i should change the line of stats to something else, and qualify it with a different level of attainability, say, "very good sng player" or something else arbitrary like that, feel free to suggest that.

i honestly couldn't care what the damn thing says, so whatever makes the majority happy. i guess it doesn't even matter in the long run if it's close to correct either, let alone accurate, varied, or useful, so who knows, maybe i'll change it to my real answer:

If your ROI is &gt; 0 then you've made the first step. roi is not a tool for examining your play, just knowing your results.

citanul

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
and i'm fine if you and degen want to say that they are unrealistic numbers.


[/ QUOTE ]

i don't really know what realistic numbers are. i've just seen a number of threads were a respected poster throws out a number, and it's almost always lower than the faq. so i thought it needed a tweaking, but i don't personally know what it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
my point of my original post was that everyone has somethign else they want the faq to look like, not just you. the stuff i put there (above) were just the tip of the iceberg wrt what people *want* the faq to have. the sum of the requests are totally unreasonable and frankly, stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i had asked for the FAQ ROI section to be gigantic (a la chiness - sorry to drag you in), then your reply would make sense. but i didn't say there should be a 6-dimensional table where i could find the world class ROI playing between 3:00-6:00 ..... i suggested:

- a review of the FAQ's numbers to see if they're realistic
- a clarification of the number of tables being played
- breaking down the buy-in's. if for some reason you're opposed to adding ~5 lines to the FAQ, i'd prefer it said ROI at 22 = x%, ROI at 109 = y%, extrapolate for yourself.

it's like you gave me a form response as soon as i said "i think we could improve the faq."

[schwza]

thanks, that's about what i was looking for.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks, that's about what i was looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have changed the faq to quote curtains' numbers, and noted them as 4 tabling.

you are hereby in charge of explaining to every new person who comes in and says the following:

"I've been playing the $xs for y games now, i have an ROI of z, and the faq says that a good player should expect to have z-w, where w is some positive number, i am the greatest player ever."

also you are in charge of all future threads that are:

"I think the FAQ's ROI section should say blah."

citanul

[curtains]

Thanks citanul, you may want to make it a tad more clear that higher numbers are attainable, and if you have a signifigantly higher ROI over the long term, than the numbers listed, you are probably one of the best players at your limit.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
hey cit, since you've decided to grace this thread with your mod-powered presence, what would be the best place for me to get started looking around the archives to put together some sort of "best of" faq? Im sick of hearing about this "legendary post" or that "well known guide" that a psychic couldnt find with the bass-ackwards search tool?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a fantastic idea! I wonder if anyone else may have thought of something like that..sure would be neat if it already existed so I didn't have to do all the work. Hrm well if it's a bunch of favorite threads, maybe I'll search for "+favorite +threads", but since I just want the original post, I'll tack in an "-Re:" at the end and search topic only.

Sweet man.

[lorinda]

google: Favorite threads stt

Also works.

Lori

[citanul]

done.

also put a link to DrPhysic's new online dictionary.

considering putting in a link to one of the recent "worst downswing ever" posts.

citanul

[beeyjay]

I agree but i think its pretty obvious considering it says that for the 10s as well.... but really I dont understand why it matters what the faq says is possible. if its not possible for you or if higher is possible for you then its not accurate. if you want to compare your results to one other specific poster than fine ask them or something but no one number can fit a site with thousands of peple posting on it. Not to mention most of the people preoccupied with all this have 200 games played. After filling up who knows how many spreadsheets with thousands of games all i can say is no two of them have the same rois.

okay, after Cit sent me the thread linking-thread (with such favorites as Aleo's guide, and much else, I think I will take that thread, look through alot of recent quality posts, and come up with it.

Before I do this though... will this get stickied? because otherwise, frankly, its not worth my time.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
done.

also put a link to DrPhysic's new online dictionary.

considering putting in a link to one of the recent "worst downswing ever" posts.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

citanul, could you put a link in the FAQ about how you are a [censored]? Some newbies whom havent read the recent threads on this topic might not realize this.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
done.

also put a link to DrPhysic's new online dictionary.

considering putting in a link to one of the recent "worst downswing ever" posts.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

citanul, could you put a link in the FAQ about how you are a [censored]? Some newbies whom havent read the recent threads on this topic might not realize this.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.. kinda harsh curtains.. maybe he could put something about how hes not the most forgiving of noobs that havent read the faq.. holla

[curtains]

hehehohaohaohaoehoaehohea

[KingDan]

[ QUOTE ]
For a "good player" the following ROis are good:

11s - 25% ROI
20s - 20% ROI
33s - 16% ROI
55s - 13% ROI
109s - 10% ROI
215s - 7% ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a player with a ROI of 13% at the 50s should earn about 7% at the 200s?

I was thinking it would be significantly lower, but I am basing this on nothing.

okay that took way too long to type out, Im guessing.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a player with a ROI of 13% at the 50s should earn about 7% at the 200s?

I was thinking it would be significantly lower, but I am basing this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats not what Im saying. I'm just giving good numbers at each limit.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, after Cit sent me the thread linking-thread (with such favorites as Aleo's guide, and much else, I think I will take that thread, look through alot of recent quality posts, and come up with it.

Before I do this though... will this get stickied? because otherwise, frankly, its not worth my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you come up with something good it will be added to the faq, not stickied independently.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
citanul, could you put a link in the FAQ about how you are a [censored]? Some newbies whom havent read the recent threads on this topic might not realize this.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you can come up with a definitive answer to which censored word should go in there, then sure.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a player with a ROI of 13% at the 50s should earn about 7% at the 200s?

I was thinking it would be significantly lower, but I am basing this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats not what Im saying. I'm just giving good numbers at each limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

egad.

citanul

[MegaBet]

Thanks for this Curtains. As a respected member of these boards I trust your opinion probably more than anyone else's here. I've had probably the worst 2 weeks of my poker "career", with a combination of continuous bad beats, losing 80% of my 50/50s and I admit some bad play by me due to tilting.

I am quitting this month right now because I'm not in the right frame of mind. My ROI for September is currently 15% with a mix of $55s and $109s (which goes to show the heater I started on!).

You have cheered me up no end. Thanks bud! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]


If your ROI is &gt; 0 then you've made the first step. roi is not a tool for examining your play, just knowing your results.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo! We have a winner!

[KingDan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a player with a ROI of 13% at the 50s should earn about 7% at the 200s?

I was thinking it would be significantly lower, but I am basing this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats not what Im saying. I'm just giving good numbers at each limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I misread that and thought you were referring to the same good player. That seemed way off /images/graemlins/smile.gif

How do you think a player with 13% ROI would change at the 109s and the 215s?

I don't play the 200s, as I wouldn't be able to hand a 4 grand downswing without bitching about it.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a player with a ROI of 13% at the 50s should earn about 7% at the 200s?

I was thinking it would be significantly lower, but I am basing this on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats not what Im saying. I'm just giving good numbers at each limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I misread that and thought you were referring to the same good player. That seemed way off /images/graemlins/smile.gif

How do you think a player with 13% ROI would change at the 109s and the 215s?

I don't play the 200s, as I wouldn't be able to hand a 4 grand downswing without bitching about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly I have no idea... I just pulled those numbers out of my ass. The point is that if you can acheive those results longterm, then you are obviously very successful at your the buyin you are playing, and there is almost no way to debate that.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this reply sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but so does your original question.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

this what i would like the faq to say:

assuming 4-tabling, these are roi's a very good player can attain:

6: __
11: __
22: __
.
.
.
109: __
215: __

this would be more useful than the current section, which is imprecise and (i think, and degen does too) inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this approach is that nobody really knows the answers.

The question doesn't even really make any sense as stated. A "very good" player doesn't play $10+1.

eastbay

[curtains]

Itd be better phrased as someone who is "good" compared to the competition at their level. Also I think that if one can do better than the numbers I listed, they are probably going to be fine if they move up to the next level.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this reply sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but so does your original question.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

this what i would like the faq to say:

assuming 4-tabling, these are roi's a very good player can attain:

6: __
11: __
22: __
.
.
.
109: __
215: __

this would be more useful than the current section, which is imprecise and (i think, and degen does too) inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this approach is that nobody really knows the answers.

The question doesn't even really make any sense as stated. A "very good" player doesn't play $10+1.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

i consider myself 'very' good and i play 22s sometimes. its fun. yay. fun. holla

perfectly fine. thats all I was really shooting for.

otherwise, I was gonna bump that sonofabitch every day.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
perfectly fine. thats all I was really shooting for.

otherwise, I was gonna bump that sonofabitch every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was going to end badly for the post and your account.

citanul

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this reply sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but so does your original question.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

this what i would like the faq to say:

assuming 4-tabling, these are roi's a very good player can attain:

6: __
11: __
22: __
.
.
.
109: __
215: __

this would be more useful than the current section, which is imprecise and (i think, and degen does too) inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this approach is that nobody really knows the answers.

The question doesn't even really make any sense as stated. A "very good" player doesn't play $10+1.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

nobody knew the answers in the original format either. i'd at least prefer a guess at a precise question rather than a guess at a fuzzy question.

someone else gave a good response re: "very good player" at 11's = good for that level.

and check your pm please.