9 person vs 10 person

[djk123]

I play 9 handed sngs at absolute poker. Since there are only 9 people, should my ROI be a little less than the percentage that is given in the FAQ for a good player (25% for the $11)? or does it not matter?

[JJKillian]

I have often wondered this same question. This is some killer math involved with this one....I think.

9 person = less prize fund but also means your 1 closer to the money at the beginning plus one last hand dealt out ever time.

Is it higher ROI? Less? or More?

JJ

[KingDan]

My guess would be lower ROI, as there is less room to outplay your opponents.

[DaveKForty7]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess would be lower ROI, as there is less room to outplay your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya but there's fewer opponents to outplay.

[HighestCard]

Well, lets put some numbers to this...

Lets say both 10 dollar buy in, 50/30/20 payout. (I'm ignoring rake)
1st in 10 person = 500% roi
1st in 9 person = 450% roi

Chance of 1st in 10 person 1/10
Chance of 1st in 9 person 1/9

500%/10 = 50
450%/9 = *gasp* 50

The numbers even out.... its the hourly rate that dosent even out. Although one could argue that a 9 person SnG takes 1/10 of the time shorter than a 10 person but thats more speculation than anything else.

Note: I'm not 100% sure my reasoning is correct, ask "eastbay" if you really want to know.

[JJKillian]

[ QUOTE ]

The numbers even out.... its the hourly rate that dosent even out. Although one could argue that a 9 person SnG takes 1/10 of the time shorter than a 10 person but thats more speculation than anything else.



[/ QUOTE ]

I recently saw a post by raptor saying that he will give up ROI for the hourly rate, so maybe 9 is better.

Also if your on a rake back program and it truly is faster then that would make some cash as well.

One other thing to consider at least for me. I play mainly on PP skins. That 800/1000 chip speeds up the tournament time....I believe. I have only played a hand full of 1500 chip sngs. I know there are turbos on UB and I would imagine the other sites as well. But if someone puts some math to this whole thing, just think that should also be a consideration.

JJ

[Ogre]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently saw a post by raptor saying that he will give up ROI for the hourly rate, so maybe 9 is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont party sngs go faster then 9 person stars tournys anyway?

[JJKillian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recently saw a post by raptor saying that he will give up ROI for the hourly rate, so maybe 9 is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont party sngs go faster then 9 person stars tournys anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah see my second post in this thread, I made a comment towards that.

I am just interested to see what the math says on this, it is beyond my math skills though.

JJ

[lorinda]

I'm going to guess that with an identical structure it should be slightly lower.

For some reason right now I can't work out why, but I'd swear that I'm right.

Lori

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
(I'm ignoring rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I feel that the rake makes less players a bad thing, again I'm getting annoyed because I'm not thinking clearly enough to work out why.

Lori

[JJKillian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(I'm ignoring rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I feel that the rake makes less players a bad thing, again I'm getting annoyed because I'm not thinking clearly enough to work out why.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a tough problem is why. Tons of variables.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(I'm ignoring rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I feel that the rake makes less players a bad thing, again I'm getting annoyed because I'm not thinking clearly enough to work out why.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something to do with that yes.

I'm going to go and make up some dodgy "proof" now.

Lori

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something to do with that yes.

I'm going to go and make up some dodgy "proof" now.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

The best I can come up with would be that you could still beat a $1 1000-player MTT in the long term with 100% rake, but you couldn't ever beat a $1 HU game with 100% rake.

Edit: and yes, that would make the reason that the rake is too much compared to the prize pool. nh.

Lori

Theoretically speaking and all other things equal:

<ul type="square"> ROI should be the same
ITM% should increase
Variance should decrease [/list]