Riddle me this...

So I'm told that the $22s are just as easy as the $11s and that anybody with a winning record at the $11s could have a winning record at the $22s, and I'm just throwing money away by not moving up. So my question is...what gives?

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8053/10pk1.png (http://imageshack.us)

Sample too small? I don't like hearing this response because it means that if I get a bigger one my ROI will magically shoot up. I don't want to keep throwing my money away.

The one difference I notice between the two is that I'm rarely over 900 chips by level 4 at the $22s. This happens almost once a set (of 4) at the $11s if not twice. Because of this I'm forced into the push/fold mode sooner which is the reason for my unusally large 5-8th placement. My ITM is also much lower (obviously) at the $22s.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/772/22uf.png (http://imageshack.us)

Sigh, I guess this is sort of a bad beat post. But I'm just a little frustrated with the people on these forums saying that the $55s and lower are a total cakewalk and anyone with half-a-brain could beat them.

Bleh, flame away.

[splashpot]

I don't know what to tell you. I play the exact same way at both levels. Sure, they might be a slightly tougher. Emphasis on slightly. I wouldn't be surprised to see your ROI go down to maybe 20% or even 15%, but that would be pretty extreme. For someone who who has 25% over that many games, you should find these to be a breeze as well.

[Shillx]

The p-value on $11 ROI not= $22 ROI is .007 if you use an SD of 1.6 buy-ins. It would be pretty tough to blame varience for the the difference in results. So now you have to determine if the players are better or if your play has fallen down some. There is always some chance (about 140:1) that you were running very well and are now running very bad, but you look to be better off evaluating your game and sticking to the $11's.

Edited to say that this doesn't mean that your true ROI is -4% or whatever. It just means that either the 22's are harder then the 11's or your play has changed a significant amount.

[mlagoo]

its always hard to tell much from these graphs, but it certainly looks like you could use more 4ths which would hopefully lead to more 1sts. ie, amp up the bubble aggression. is there any sort of mental thing (slightly higher stakes) that is making you play a bit more passive in the 22s?

[bigt439]

BOO this post. You know your sample size is too small; you said this. What more do you want?

[psyduck]

I can't believe you waited till you won $4000 at the 10+1s before moving up.

WTF? You already have the bankroll for the 55s, and some would say you should be taking shots at the 109s.

[Freudian]

I'm below 10% firsts in December over 300 games or so at 39% ITM. I just can't buy a 1st no matter how big favourite I am when the other guy is all-in. I'm not going to make any dramatic changes because of panic. If it still is the same after 1000 SnGs perhaps I'll have a peak.

[KingDan]

My shot in the dark is that you ran a little good at the 11s and a little bad at the 22s.

[jeffraider]

Your sample size for the $11s is small too, btw. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
The one difference I notice between the two is that I'm rarely over 900 chips by level 4 at the $22s. This happens almost once a set (of 4) at the $11s if not twice. Because of this I'm forced into the push/fold mode sooner which is the reason for my unusally large 5-8th placement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you meant to say was, "my problem seems to be that I'm panicking too early and raising garbage in EP and running into big hands a lot".

Edit: this is very common for people playing stakes that they are not psychologically comfortable to be playing at.

[ QUOTE ]
is there any sort of mental thing (slightly higher stakes) that is making you play a bit more passive in the 22s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Maybe when I first started, but I've dropped $100+ at the $11s before, so 1 or 2 sets of $22s that go 0 for 4 is about the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you waited till you won $4000 at the 10+1s before moving up.

WTF? You already have the bankroll for the 55s, and some would say you should be taking shots at the 109s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't wait and all of a sudden just try 250+, I've been taking shots since August. And no, I don't think I'm going to jump to the $109s just cuz "i can". I think I'll try beating the weaker players first.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The one difference I notice between the two is that I'm rarely over 900 chips by level 4 at the $22s. This happens almost once a set (of 4) at the $11s if not twice. Because of this I'm forced into the push/fold mode sooner which is the reason for my unusally large 5-8th placement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you meant to say was, "my problem seems to be that I'm panicking too early and raising garbage in EP and running into big hands a lot".

Edit: this is very common for people playing stakes that they are not psychologically comfortable to be playing at.

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw I agree that this could entirely be the case, and I think you should review your play and see if it's true for you. I had this problem, was making disgustingly stupid pushes with weak aces in EP etc. Just remember that you're not really desperate for a push until you're like 3BB, though of course you should rarely pass up on a push with 5BB from the button or something.

Start messing with SNGPT and see what you need to push with when there's like 6 or 7 players left and you're in levels 4/5.

[golfcchs]

[ QUOTE ]
My shot in the dark is that you ran a little good at the 11s and a little bad at the 22s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which your 41% ITM at the 11's would seem to indecate.

If you dont want to here small sample size I would look at your heads up and ITM play. I bet you are over estimating your $EV 3 handed on pushes, and underestimating it heads up.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My shot in the dark is that you ran a little good at the 11s and a little bad at the 22s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which your 41% ITM at the 11's would seem to indecate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really..there are plenty of winning players that manage 40% or better (I'm not one of them). Doesn't necessarily translate to a high ROI though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont want to here small sample size I would look at your heads up and ITM play. I bet you are over estimating your $EV 3 handed on pushes, and underestimating it heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this assessment.

this is EXACTLY how mine looks (besides the n of tournaments)

currently im at 490 11s and 470 22s

490 11s : ITM 43 ROI 27
480 22s : ITM 35 ROI -2

no clue whats wrong, but what tends to happen is i see a lot more variance when i play the 22s. My days range from -250 to +250 (so around 12 buyins), while at the 11s my days range from -70 to +120 (-7 buyins to 12 buyins)
Also, i tend to streak these -250 days back to back, so what happens is i win 11s, move up to 22s, win for a bit then lose a ton, go back down to 11s, and then the cycle continues.

been doing this for almost 2 months of going up and down and still cant seem to beat the 22s ARG

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm just a little frustrated with the people on these forums saying that the $55s and lower are a total cakewalk and anyone with half-a-brain could beat them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what you hear on these forums, a vast majority of poker players are losers, both at their current level and lifetime. It's natural to struggle at a level when you first move up. If it were easy, we'd all be destroying the step highers.

Study SNGPT, post hands, and keep thinking about poker. And I'd also recommend staying in the 22s. It appears that you've made some nice change playing the 11s and -4% ROI isn't a huge drain, so get some experience. It really is important.

dont know....i just jumped to the 55s and i tell ya, they are worse than the 33s..

[Hendricks433]

people always say this but isnt your sample size too small just like everyone says for everything else?

Based on your finish distribution, I think you might not be aggressive enough around the bubble/ITM. If you haven't yet, I recommend you pick up SNGPT and start messing around with it.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]

Sample too small? I don't like hearing this response because it means that if I get a bigger one my ROI will magically shoot up. I don't want to keep throwing my money away.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like you're having a common misconception about the law of large numbers here. The money is gone and any results from here on out are going to be completely independent of it. You may go on a hot streak, or you may not. You could even go on another one of these losing streaks.

Another thing to note is that standard error is proportional to the square of the sample size. This is why everyone always says that your sample size is too small.

For instance, how many tournaments do you think it takes to know your true ROI +/- 10%? I'm not exactly sure, but it's not that small of a number. Now suppose you want to know your true ROI +/- 1%. It will take 100 times as many tournaments to do this as it took to know your ROI within 10% (since you are trying to be 10x more accurate).

I think any good player on here has run bad for 200+ tournaments before. You may or may not be throwing your money away, but if you feel uncomfortable, you should probably move down, get your comfidence back and then give it another shot.

[The Yugoslavian]

Greke,

You still have an account? I just assumed you got banned somehow.


Huh....go figure.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Yugoslav

[SlackerMcFly]

Math baffles me /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Good to see Greekie back in the Haus!

could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[/ QUOTE ]
Proving your ROI at the 11s is not something most people care to do. If you wanted to prove it, you're right, it would take thousands of games.

Since the level of difficulty does not differ by a great amount, lots of people just choose to move to the 22s when their bankroll can handle it. If you're winning at a decent rate at the 11s, getting the bankroll for the 22s will take far fewer than 1000 games.

[curtains]

Keep at it, you are surely getting somewhat unlucky. Trust me, my friend was in same spot, ,had great ROI at the $11s and was down a little moeny after 300-400 $20s, but was back to like 15 ROI after around 1500.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
Math baffles me /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Good to see Greekie back in the Haus!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks guys. You'll see me posting a lot more in about 2-3 weeks. I'll post for a while, then I'll disappear again at around the 3rd week of the term. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bennies]

You are running bad, keep at it. However, don't expect to get a 20+ roi. Your sample size from the 11's is not that big either, all it says is that you are a winning player and that your true roi is somewhere between 10 and 33 or so.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[/ QUOTE ]
Proving your ROI at the 11s is not something most people care to do. If you wanted to prove it, you're right, it would take thousands of games.

Since the level of difficulty does not differ by a great amount, lots of people just choose to move to the 22s when their bankroll can handle it. If you're winning at a decent rate at the 11s, getting the bankroll for the 22s will take far fewer than 1000 games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think splash hit the nail on the head here. When people say "I have X% ROI at a given level" it is usually not their "true" expected ROI. Often times it won't even close to it.

In reality, there's never a way to prove that you're winning at a given level. You basically have two cases.

1) Your sample size is too small
2) Your sample size isn't too small

In case 1, your numbers are obviously unreliable. On the other hand, in the time it takes you to amass a significant sample size both your game and the games you are playing in are evolving, so the number isn't accurate compared to what your new level of success is.

However, given that you post here, know the basics, and are constantly working on your game gives you an increased probability that you're a winning player at whatever level you're playing. So if you're playing and winning, there's a better chance that you're winning because you're playing well. Conversely, if you're losing there's a better chance it's caused by variance.

Of course, you should never assume that a winning/losing streak is due to good play or variance and always strive to improve your game.

[tigerite]

It's only a 10 buyin drop, but your ITM looks very low, that's the main thing you need to be looking at. Of course it's very hard to tell over 200 anyway.

[GtrHtr]

Compare your top 5 finish % between the 11s and the 22s. Go back and review why you think this may be happening. I'd be amazed at your 6-9th finish % at the 22s except your sample size is small, small, small.

What kinda sets do you play in? 4/8/10 continuous, same start time etc. If you were 8 tabling the 11s, I'd 4 table the 22s for a while, maybe 2 table, maybe 1 table until I get a feel for the games.

Can you lend me a few $$?

The majority of my $11s have been 4tabling. I've just started 6tabling them over the last few hundred. These are done in sets.

I've 1, 2, and 4tabled the $22s and all have the same success (or lack thereof).

go check out irieguys posts about variance they should give you an answer.

FYI when I did my first 1000 10+1 sngs I had an ROI of 9% on my eurobet account and 39% on my empire account with about 500 tourneys a piece. I would play 4 tables of both at the same time and the only thing that can explain the differences between the two would be variance. Just keep grinding and looking back at old HH to see if there were holes in your play.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of my $11s have been 4tabling. I've just started 6tabling them over the last few hundred. These are done in sets.

I've 1, 2, and 4tabled the $22s and all have the same success (or lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Here is what I do to refocus myself. I review every HH after each game through SNGPT and hand by hand in the text file. I look for situations where I missed a read, push, impact of a stack/impact of my stack (FE), and post flop play in the early rounds if I was in a hand.

Also, I single table when I'm going through a downswing - as soon as I ID the downswing - 8 in a row is normal. When I single table I focus on every play, every bet, every fold of every hand - even the ones I'm not in - particularly the ones I'm not in. When I finish, I go back and review (as stated above) that game, even if I win. I find this helps a lot and I play my best when I single table like this. I identify my leaks my opponents leaks etc. I may spend 8-10 hours playing like this until I'm ready to play more tables. What I find is that I handle variance much better now and that I can regain any losses in $ while at the same time tightening up my game. Time consuming yes, but well worth it IMO.