a quote

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
_________________________
What is a good ROI for SnGs

You need to play at least 200-300 at a given level to get a good read.

25% ok
25% - 35% good
35% - 40% very good
40% - 45% excellent
45% - 50% probably unsustainable
50%+ one of: unsustainable, your lying, you have hacked the poker room

_______________________________________________

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know the origin please do not reveal your genius in this post.

[tigerite]

Easy..

[MegaBet]

Definitely NOT stanzee, simply because he would never say this:

45% - 50% probably unsustainable

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[splashpot]

Can't believe people think Irie would say this.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't believe people think Irie would say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

i voted irie only because i figure that's why the quote would be remarkable.

i mean, if stanzee said this, who cares?

[stupidsucker]

edit: removed my own comment that was missleading...

[microbet]

1. Irony - the voice for the long run is really long
2. The joke answer (one in every multiple choice question)
3. Self-effacing
4. Don't really know how to classify this answer
5. Few people will recognize the name, hasn't posted in a long time.

[microbet]

Post deleted by microbet

[stupidsucker]

edit: thanks bro

[The Yugoslavian]

The user in question posted that a *loooong* time ago. Although it is very interesting *where* it was posted.

Remember though, the boards best posters honestly felt at that time that these numbers were correct (and they may have been) as STTs were a very new poker structure online and even very good 2p2ers had only begun to scratch the surface of unexploitable play.

Yugoslav

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
The user in question posted that a *loooong* time ago. Although it is very interesting *where* it was posted.

Remember though, the boards best posters honestly felt at that time that these numbers were correct (and they may have been) as STTs were a very new poker structure online and even very good 2p2ers had only begun to scratch the surface of unexploitable play.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

This was going to be my point in somewhat of a nutshell after the results started to take shape. Yugo has made a timely entry. More on this later...

[Lori]

I have certainly used numbers like 250-300 in the past, but I would never spell "your" like that and not edit it.

Lori

[eastbay]

None of the above.

There's some context here which makes those numbers not as silly as they may seem at first glance.

Believe it or not, there was a time when 4-tabling was considered risky bleeding edge multi-tasking in these parts.

eastbay

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
The user in question posted that a *loooong* time ago. Although it is very interesting *where* it was posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks for the hint now I remember where I saw this quote. I wasn't around or playing sit n go's when the quote was posted, but I highly doubt those numbers were accurate even back then. There was just a much smaller sample size and most people playing this "very new poker structure" hadn't played many games and probably were running good. Now we have many more people playing and playing many more games we have a better idea of what is sustainable even if the games did get tougher.

[johnnybeef]

I haven't read any replies yet, but I have several observations.

1. That statement was made when SnG's were relatively new. As such, there were very few people on these boards that had played 10x let alone 50x that amount of SnGs.

2. The opposition was much much worse.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
None of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops.

I'd think you'd know this one! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yugoslav

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have certainly used numbers like 250-300 in the past, but I would never spell "your" like that and not edit it.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.

Irieguy

[stupidsucker]

The quote was taken from this old FAQ (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable).

I was lurking back at this time... yes the statement was made a long time ago.

Also--- most of the "pros" were only 4-tabling at that time, which I believe does make a difference in ROI.... And if I remember correctly--- the statement was in reference to 1-tabling

AND, the quote was aimed at beginning players... so, we're talking about ROIs in the 10s and 30s (I don't even think the 20s were available then--- and if they were, there were never many tables running).

At the time, I was 4-tabling the 30s, with a fairly large sample size (relatively) of around 1000 SNGs with approx. a 30% ROI.

Hardly anyone understood bubble play then (and I didn't either, but intuitively played at least more correctly than my opponents)... The games have changed a lot.