Why is 50% ROI impossible?

Why is everyone so sure that 50% is absolutely impossible no matter what the level is? Is there some mathematical proof that says skill cannot overcome luck by that much?

well, lets just say we take it on faith that if the best on these boards cant do it, no one can.

to answer your question a little more thoroughly, what do you mean by "skill"? The general interpretation of that word in this sense would be getting in your bets when you have the best of it... be it pf, on the flop, turn, or river.

but yes, invariably, even when you have the best of it pf, flop, or whatever, eventually they will draw on you.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is everyone so sure that 50% is absolutely impossible no matter what the level is? Is there some mathematical proof that says skill cannot overcome luck by that much?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is impossible but your opponents have constantly to make really stupid plays on a level that is unheard of, like calling all-ins on a missed flop with 9 high.

[lorinda]

I'm going to guess that if you played 1000 $5s on Stars or UB and chose you games incredibly carefully with a lot of forward planning, and only playing when rested and one tabling, that it might JUST be possible to hit 50% ROI.

I am willing to bet that you cannot do it over 2000 games at Party.

Lori

^^^^

under L's condition, very likely the most skilled among us could do it at stars... but who has that kinda time?

I've averaged 40% ROI at the stars 5's for around 100 SNGs. I've been 3 tabling too, and I certainly dont consider myself very good (I started in the middle of september playing the $5's, played the $1.20's before that.)

I bet raptor or any of the other good guys could get 60% at the stars $5's.

[ QUOTE ]
I've averaged 40% ROI at the stars 5's for around 100 SNGs. I've been 3 tabling too, and I certainly dont consider myself very good (I started in the middle of september playing the $5's, played the $1.20's before that.)

I bet raptor or any of the other good guys could get 60% at the stars $5's.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a very small sample size and are on a heater.

[Karak567]

100 games is nothing.

Do that over 1000 games and I might believe you.

Might.

No one is getting 60 %, sorry.

Why is everyone so negative about the possibility that $5's are extremely (50%) profitable? Either of the above 2 posters care to point to a thread where someone did 1000 ( or even 300-400) $5's, and they have records of their ITM/ROI? I think everyone is being dismissive too quickly, and it may be possible. Unless you have played the $5s, you really have no idea how bad the play is. I'm not trying to be negative, but I really think this is possible.

I'm guarantee that someone could get 50% ROI at the 60 cent tables at Absolute /images/graemlins/grin.gif. Everyone there basically treats it like a play money game. Plus you get 1500 chips and the blinds start at 5-10.

[raptor517]

honestly.. who cares? if someone can do 50% roi at the 5 dollar sngs over 203580923580923098523 sngs.. why would they? they would be much better off just playing something else. sure, if you get 1500 chips and 15 minutes levels at a 5 dollar sng, you might be able to do 50% roi. you could probably fold into the money 10% of the time, and if you make 1 steal can make the money 30% of the time. throw in some decent plays, an occasional limp with a pp to flop a set and double up, an aggro raise with QQ to beat out JT on a T62 board, etc.. i mean.. it PROBABLY wouldnt be that difficult. but no one in their right mind would do it. waste of time. holla

[FieryJustice]

who wouldnt want to 40 table the $6s? Thats $100/hr with no variance! Or better yet, 80 table them!

I care because it's part of the reason why I decided to move up to the $55s. I'm doing fairly well there although it's far too small a sample size to say. I just felt some comfort in knowing that if 50% ROI at the $33s is as tough a feat as everyone says it is, then I'm pretty sure I can get 20% at the 55s easier than that if I work hard on it.

[Sabrazack]

50% at the 33:s is impossible, can't put it in any other way than that. 20% ROI at the 55:s is very very good.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
50% at the 33:s is impossible, can't put it in any other way than that. 20% ROI at the 55:s is very very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, yea 50% in the 33s isnt even in the same ballpark as 20% in the 55s. aint even the same sport. holla

[eastbay]

There is no mathematical argument for this, nor can there be, since the limiting factor here is not about mathematics, it's about how well the player pool actually plays. This is not a mathematical question but one of empiricism.

It's pretty close to empirical fact, however.

eastbay

[MegaBet]

I can't wait till stanzee sees this thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait till stanzee sees this thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

[FlyingSumo]

People would pick up a $20-bill if they saw it, not knowing that a $50-bill would fly past them when they bent down. That's why.

[Ken_AA]

I had 52% ROI in August and September over the course of 44 $6 SNG's on Party.

Ken

If 100 isnt considered a sufficient sample size, 44 certainly isnt enough, Ken.

[Chaostracize]

Jon. I'm a little drunk right now. But I can say with undiffering conviction that I love you.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
who wouldnt want to 40 table the $6s? Thats $100/hr with no variance! Or better yet, 80 table them!

[/ QUOTE ]

i no rite? its almost as good as breaking even over 1k 215s. bwahahahhahaa. im sorry. holla

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait till stanzee sees this thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it only took a year; but finally someone acknowledges my comic genius /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mudbuddha]

so i guess i shouldnt brag about going 3 for 3 on 10$ NL tonihgt.. THATS LIKE 100% ROI!!! who needs a big sample size.

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
so i guess i shouldnt brag about going 3 for 3 on 10$ NL tonihgt.. THATS LIKE 100% ROI!!! who needs a big sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, that's 454% roi if u won 3/3 11s

[Pudge714]

While obviously horribly unrealistic would it be possible to get an ROI of over 100% if you could see everybody's cards? If so from that standpoint it would be mathematically probable (Although highly doubtful/ nearly impossible.) to get achieve an ROI of 50+ if not more.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
While obviously horribly unrealistic would it be possible to get an ROI of over 100% if you could see everybody's cards? If so from that standpoint it would be mathematically probable (Although highly doubtful/ nearly impossible.) to get achieve an ROI of 50+ if not more.

[/ QUOTE ]

prolly wouldnt help as much as you would think. most people wouldnt use the info they find correctly anyways. holla

[wickss]

[ QUOTE ]
actually, that's 454% roi if u won 3/3 11s

[/ QUOTE ]
355%

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
actually, that's 454% roi if u won 3/3 11s

[/ QUOTE ]
355%

[/ QUOTE ]

correct...forgot to subtract buyin /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[mts]

the last 2 months combined i have a higher ROI% than ITM%. just kinda weird. I think its something like 55% and 50%.

/brag

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
the last 2 months combined i have a higher ROI% than ITM%. just kinda weird. I think its something like 55% and 50%.

/brag

[/ QUOTE ]

i bet yer sample is at least 5k isnt it. holla

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While obviously horribly unrealistic would it be possible to get an ROI of over 100% if you could see everybody's cards? If so from that standpoint it would be mathematically probable (Although highly doubtful/ nearly impossible.) to get achieve an ROI of 50+ if not more.

[/ QUOTE ]

prolly wouldnt help as much as you would think. most people wouldnt use the info they find correctly anyways. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the point of my post was that if one played every hand completely perfectly they could maintain a 50+ ROI. Therefore I am assuming they use the information very effectively so they can play perfectly. While I agree that people would use it incorrectly or not to thier full ability it is still possible if one uses the information correctly.

This is a hypothetical to simulate a situation that should be greater than any advantage you could realistically have over your opponents in a typical 800-1000 chip SNG. **Disclaimer--I've never played a signifigant sample of SNGs of less than a $22 buy-in** Every tournament you play you are guaranteed 2 things:


1) You will be dealt pocket KK on the first hand, you will push all in every time and get called by the first four opponents who will play for all there chips with any pocket pair, two suited cards, connectors, or two cards higher than 10.

2) If you win the hand, you do not play another hand until it is heads up, but don't have to pay any blinds. When it becomes heads up you are evenly matched and evenly chipped against your opponent and win half the time and finish 2n half the time.

In your typical first hand, you get called by 78o, AJo, T4s, and 55. You are eliminated 61% of the time and the other 39% you have half the chips at the table and post and fold without losing your blinds till it's heads up.

In the end, you finish 1st 19.5 times and 2nd 19.5 times and no thirds out of 100.

I don't think even the best player out there can have a long-term advantage as great as this over the table in a typical SNG, yet ROI in this dream-type scenario is still only 42%

[pokerlaw]

As someone who spent a bit too much time on the t1500 $5.50 games (first learning to play, then moving back down to learn to multi-table), I ASSURE you that 50% ROI is certainly possible.

However, as some have correctly noted, it is just a waste of time since by jumping to the $10+1s, you can have 1/2 the ROI and make the same $$ - making a 5K (or even close to that) sample size pointless to collect.