ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[N 82 50 24]

There's been a lot of talk lately about ZeeJustin, MTT ROI, variance, etc. I want to present some data that I have on Justin, strictly on PokerStars. Justin agreed to let me do this.

Okay, first, a quick word about the data I have. It's PokerStars MTTs from February 9th 2004 until virtually current (early on Monday morning, 12/12). I also have what I believe to be almost all of the $215 events (I know of a few I'm missing that I'm planning to database soon). It's not complete. I know it would be better if I had Party too, but I don't. Anyway, on to the analysis.

Clearly, he's not among the most frequent MTTs on Stars, but he's still playing enough to get an idea of where he stands. I know, from a statistical perspective, he has to play a ton of MTTs for it to be "significant" that he's a winning/losing player. However, I think as someone plays more and more, you can say with more confidence whether they are or aren't beating the game. With MTTs, nothing, it seems, is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt -- so this doesn't proven Justin is a winning or losing player, it just improves our ability to guess.

One major problem with our sample is that it has a lot of big field tournaments in it. One would expect to miss the final table pretty much all of the time in these 3000+ person tournaments, but that isn't the case in the smaller 109r. Even the Stupers (the Stars Super) have a pretty decent size field. Nonetheless, I proceed.

Here is a general breakdown of Justin's stats, sorted by # played:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/generalstats.JPG

Here is a breakdown of his biggest cashes:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/biggestcashes.JPG

Now, that's kind of a shocking image. Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true. This is where the trolls usually come out and say: "but, if you take out those two cashes, he's a losing player" or "he just got lucky, the rest of the time shows his true skill - ie, he sucks." Well, in a sense, those trolls are correct. Here are his overall results, to my best knowledge:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/overall.JPG

His ITM is about right... usually 10% of the field gets paid, but he doesn't play to get into the money. The FT rate and top 3 rate are hard to analyze because he plays so many big field tourneys. His avg finish is better than avg, although not by much. Across all the players I've looked at, very few are in the 30s. Most winning players hang around the 40-45 mark. However, his ROI is pretty telling. He's more than tripled his investment on Stars on avg in a tourney. A good player can probably expect to have a 2-4x the buyin expectation, so this seems just about right to me.

If you take out the two wins, he's DOWN over $20K on Stars in that time period in MTTs. That's true as far as I can tell. However, Justin clearly isn't looking for consistency with his game selection... he's looking for big scores. I don't think he'd want to slowly build up his profit $200 at a time in 5 dollar rebuy tournaments. The whole point of playing 3500 person $200 tourneys is to bust out 50 times, win once and be ahead $100K at the end of the day. Justin knows that and he expects, over the long term, to lose most of the time (although he obviously hopes any given week is an exception). The point is you can't say "but if you take away that one win" without saying "but if you take away all those losses" as well.

Another point trolls might make is that he just got lucky yesterday. True, he did. But, like I've mentioned, the big field tourneys are about just hitting it over and over until you break through. Sunday was Justin's day. He's put himself in position to win the Sunday tournament a number of times. I recall one Big Sunday tourney on Stars where Justin had a very healthy stack deep (less than 100 people left), poised to roll over the final table. He got in pre flop with AA v AQ against another healthy stack -- and the board comes with two queens. A great opportunity lost. But that's poker... keep putting yourself in a good spot, things will eventually work out. Just because he won some key races and didn't get unlucky doesn't just make him a bad player.

Anyway, congrats to Justin on his performance on Sunday. It was clearly deserved and was the culmination of years of effort looking for a huge cash on Stars.

[ZeeJustin]

Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense.
1) A lot of those tourneys shouldn't count. Most of the $1-$3 tourneys I just went all-in every hand, and about half of the $30 and below tourneys were probably other people on my account.
2) Sats aren't on here. I've won like 7 or 8 seats to main events that would boost all my stats.
3) I've had MUCH more success on Party than Stars, and I play there far more often.
4) My best success at Stars has been in SNGs, but this doesn't have those stats.
5) What about live poker Stars tournaments like Deavuille or last years PCA. Those don't count either?!?

This is some extremely selective data.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense.
1) A lot of those tourneys shouldn't count. Most of the $1-$3 tourneys I just went all-in every hand, and about half of the $30 and below tourneys were probably other people on my account.
2) Sats aren't on here. I've won like 7 or 8 seats to main events that would boost all my stats.
3) I've had MUCH more success on Party than Stars, and I play there far more often.
4) My best success at Stars has been in SNGs, but this doesn't have those stats.
5) What about live poker Stars tournaments like Deavuille or last years PCA. Those don't count either?!?

This is some extremely selective data.

[/ QUOTE ]

To reply...

1) Those tourneys really aren't affecting the numbers we're looking at here. Granted they make for a lot of red in the top graphic, but that's not really the point of this

2) Satellites aren't MTTs. They're a different breed of tournament poker. Just like STTs aren't in here, HU STTs aren't in here and cash games aren't included either.

3) I said I don't have Party... it's unfortunate, I agree.

4) Like I said, this is just a look at MTTs... a high variance form of poker for sure. It's characterized by long periods of failure and a few moments of success, hopefully resulting in a long term profit of some kind.

5) No, I guess that's what the Hendon Mob is for, although they don't include non-cashes. If there was a way to get non-cashing info for live MTTs, I would start to include those as well.

[aLOWdAkING]

Don't sweat it bro, you're still my hero (after Phil Ivey of course).

[Exitonly]

nice post. especially nicec because i like to be reminded how crazy mtt's are, while i'm in the middle of a downswing.

[scott8]

If you only took my PS stats you would say I am losing player. If you only took my Party stats you would think I had won much more than I had.

Considering how many sites offer lucrative MTTs, I have a major problem analyzing data from just one site to paint the picture of ROI.

It would be like me only looking at my BB/100 in cash games for even days or something.

I think the data is interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

-Scott

[Exitonly]

How is it selective data? it's just a small sample size.
And your conerns about the smaller tournaments affecting your stats.. you barely played any of them, and they are such a tiny fraction of your average buyin. they're not going to skew your stats much at all.

[MLG]

Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy that is still massively +ev after taking out his top 2 cashes either
A) never goes really deep
B) rhymes with colson

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the data is interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I set out most of those points in the beginning of my post.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously.

If nothing else, this data could be a great point of reference for an essay explaining what it means to play MTTs and the differences between massive field MTTs and every other form of poker so far as money, winning and results are concerned.

So... who's gonna write it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[The4Aces]

i think he is saying it is misleading the ITM stats. he didnt care about those tournamnets but they hurt his ITM stats.

[billyjex]

Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[Skjonne]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's not worthless nor retarded. It's simply analysing a more or less random subset of the data. Out there in the real world it's called statistics.

Have a nice day

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh... how many times do we have to discuss this qualification of this MTT data?

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to have the see entire MTT "universe" to speculate about a players skill level. Performance on each of the sites should be the same for all sites (no one is "luckier on stars"). So if you have a decent sample size for a player, even if it's all for Stars tournaments, you should be able to get a decent feel for how 'good' the player is.

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And until you test a vaccine on every potential user, clinical trials are useless. Same goes for election polls, censuses, etc. Down with statistics!

[daveymck]

How do you get those extra stats?

Edit n/m realise who posted this now, know the extra info isnt public domain yet.

[Exsubmariner]

Thank you for posting this, pokerdb. I can't see the graphics, but your descriptions are good. Cool idea for a site, BTW. Nothing tells the truth like simple numbers.

X

ALL statisical data analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.

The purpose of this post was to attempt to quantify Justin's skill level, not to paint an accurate picture of MTT ROI as a whole, nor to prepare Justin's taxes (LOL). The data sample, although from only one site is perfectly adequate for that end.

It is common to use whatever data is easily available and extrapolate from that. I don't think Justin deliberately plays lousy on other sites, or better on Stars, so the general assumptions are valid.

Another great thing about this post, is that it puts things into prespective.

Why be embaraassed? Most of us would love to trade stats with you.

A side questtion here: Two people have said, or implied, that they meet with more success at pokerparty rather than poker stars. Why would this be? Personally, I only play at stars. Am I missing something?

This is a legitimate question for me, I am very new to on-line tournaments, being far more used to playing live.

Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[sublime]

just logged into stars today and saw you won the sunday!

good job bro /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stipe_fan]

Nice job, N82.

How many of us have actually wondered how one of the top players perform at a given site. We all know Zee has some great cashes over the last couple of years. This puts on paper what a lot of players have advocated (ala MLG), that going for a big score is what it's all about. I am a little surprised that he has so few "big" scores on Stars. Again, in Zee's defense this is least frequented site. (I tend to get the worst rivers on Stars which detracts me from the site.)

This is a perfect case study of risking it all to win the top prize.

Great job, Zee. Great observation, N82, whoever you are.

Stipe

[ansky451]

Wow, I'm genuinely disapointed in some of the responses in this thread.

Billyjex: N 82 never said this is the end all be all of all [censored] multi's. He specifically used this data to point out that a fantastic player can be losing over a relatively long period of time, due to the insane variance in MTTs. He is not saying "oooh look at me, I run a site that tells you who is good and who is bad." He acknowledged that its just stars.

Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that. Why somebody like you is embaressed... boggles my mind. Oh and lol @ thinking the 3 dollar tournaments will have any significant effect on any piece of data.

Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.

HEY EVERYBODY: I am down about 11,000 dollars over my last 150 stars MTTs. WOW I MUST BE HORRIBLE AT POKER. Oh wait, 150 MTTs before that, I was up 16,000. I MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT AT POKER FOR THAT STRETCH, RIGHT? No. I'm not ashamed at this... at all. I have a barely positive ROI on stars, I'm up about 3000 over like 450 tournaments. I'm on a terrible run. It happens. On partypoker and UB I definitely have a higher ROI over a smaller sample size, and I couldn't care less what a bunch of people want to interpret my data as. Before about 8 months ago, I wasn't very serious about MTTs and I screwed around in them and I lost a lot. I also played several WCOOPs, and all the 200s, and have 0 cashes in them. All this crap skews my data. There are multiple factors which can contribute to your ROI being not as positive as you would think it *should* be.

[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy that is still massively +ev after taking out his top 2 cashes either
A) never goes really deep
B) rhymes with colson

[/ QUOTE ]

C) Rhymes with JohnnyTax

[yvesaint]

i wish i had a 888% ROI /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee wrote:

"Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense."

and I said "Zee, don't let him get to ya."

You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

[ QUOTE ]
nice post. especially nicec because i like to be reminded how crazy mtt's are, while i'm at the very end of a downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Could you calculate the standard deviation of his winnings/tournamennt please? You acknowledged that the sample size was small, but it's really really important to note just how small the sample size is.

Also, 200% ROI's really good.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is the same as my other point, that n 82 was not critisizing Zee's results, nor was he trying to put down zee in anyway. For him to defend himself implies that somehow he was being attacked, which he wasn't.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[ QUOTE ]
ALL statisical data analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's really really really wrong.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, you mean in earth years?

there are actually 3 in 2005.

[ansky451]

Indeed, that 100 rebuy counts too.

[Ulysses]

N,

I think this is an excellent post and analysis and pretty succinctly illustrates the insanely high variance that exists in tourney poker. Another way of looking at it is that here's this thing where you have an expectation of say $200-400 a shot, yet in one instance you might get lucky and win $100k+. The long run in tourneys is much longer than even many very experienced top tourney players would like to think.

[Allinlife]

lol it's funny so many people are taking this so personally FOR justin. I belielive no one here has any doubts on justin's tourny skills.

I really appreciate this post OP..nice to see how varaince is like on MTTs.

To be honest, I still have hard time understanding how one could have such an edge in most party MTTs where average stack is around 15bb...oh well.

[PrayingMantis]

I'm very surprised from the fact that some seem to be surprised by the data in the OP.

Variance in large field MTTs is completely crazy.

There's nothing strange or surprising about ZJ being "down" in MTTs on stars if you "ignore" this last result, and in fact, "ignoring" his last result is completely absurd when analyzing such data, BECAUSE the variance is huge.

Extreme example: suppose you buy a $1 ticket into some kind of a lottery game in which you have a 1:10K chance to win 1 billion dollars. No other prizes. This is a hugely +EV gabmle for you. Suppose you "play" 21,653 times, lose all 21,653 first times and then win the big one on the 21,654th time. And then you keep on playing and lose 87,000 more times.

Obviously, there's no sense in analyzing this data while ignoring the "one single lucky result" in which you won 1 billion, even though it is very clear that you were extremely "lucky" (in some clear sense) in that one particular 21,654th game when you won.

[gobboboy]

Another good example of MTT play is something like a role playing game. If you roll a 4+ 10 times in a row, you win the tournament. So what? A fish could do the same thing. But the advantage you get over being a better player is that you get yourselves into slightly better rolls. A bad player may have to roll a 5+ 10 times in a row. It really adds up over the long run.

Anyway, good job ZJ. MTG players represent.

[N 82 50 24]

I'm glad most people appreciate the point I was trying to make... variance is a bitch in MTTs.

I will look into the standard deviation calculation.

Also, I don't think Justin is embarrassed about his stats... maybe just having all these supposedly private stats out there for the first time is a bit discomforting. I did ask him whether it was okay to do this and he said yes, so he had to expect something like this was coming.

[ilya]

I don't think anyone can say with any confidence whatsoever that Justin is a winning/losing player based on these stats.

definitely interesting to look at, though. thanks. thanks also to Justin for allowing this to be posted.

[CardSharpCook]

Standard.

My Stars stats would be the same way. Take out my top cash and I've probably lost $10k or more over there. Party is different because I've been able to play more larger buyin, smaller field tournies.... And more Omaha and Limit tournies.

Variance is a btch.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b305/gildwulf/soccerfan.jpg

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to address this, as I feel it's a flawed way of thinking. Satellites don't allow you to lower your "average cost of entry" into a tournament. That's a bit like saying you're "in for $11" in a Step 5 on Party. It really doesn't make sense. You *won money* at the satellite, not a ticket or whatever. You then choose to use that "ticket" to enter a larger buyin tourney. Even if you don't have the choice to unregister, by entering the satellite you're choosing to attempt to win a certain amount of $ to be used towards a larger buyin tourney.

Let's say you want to play the PCA and you need $11,000. You should play wherever your hourly rate is highest within your risk tolerance. If that's $200 STTs on Party, then so be it. If you feel like you have a great expectation in the weekly $650 sat, then play that. I think it's laughable that known cash game pros on Stars (people who never play STTs) would try to play these double shootouts when they could clearly have a higher expectation per hour at the 5/10nl or 10/20nl tables. Why not play those tables and just buyin with W$?

On the other hand, if you feel your best hourly expectation within your risk tolerance is at satellite tables, why not play them full time? If that payout structure is agreeable to you, why stop playing them after you win once?

Just had to get that off my chest... although it seems like a basic concept, a lot of people ignore it.

[TomHimself]

vn post n82, very interesting.
thanks zee for letting this be posted and again congrats

[DeuceKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
i wish i had a 888% ROI /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Lately I'd settle for 88%

[Skjonne]

When is this info gonna be available on your site, N? Your post got me kind of curious of what my own stats look like.

(I know I'm a decent winner $-wise but as you've showed, there's a lot more to it than that)

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
When is this info gonna be available on your site, N? Your post got me kind of curious of what my own stats look like.

(I know I'm a decent winner $-wise but as you've showed, there's a lot more to it than that)

[/ QUOTE ]

I PMed you to avoid being permanently banned for spamming or whatever

[LearnedfromTV]

You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation in a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, same field size (for the sake of controls on the argument assume field size is constant), that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation isn a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel that type of lower variance payout suits your game, then you should play them just because they suit you... not because it allows you to lower your cost of entry. I'd never argue people shouldn't play satellites -- but they should only play them if that's the best place to "invest" their $ at that time.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation isn a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel that type of lower variance payout suits your game, then you should play them just because they suit you... not because it allows you to lower your cost of entry. I'd never argue people shouldn't play satellites -- but they should only play them if that's the best place to "invest" their $ at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. Rereading my first post I realize that "lower your average cost of entry" was a bad choice of words. My only point is that an MTT player can reduce his overall variance by including satellites. He could just as easily reduce his variance by playing STT's or cash games and using the cash to play MTT's. The difference, in my mind, is that a satellite (when it has a supersat format) is a type of MTT, albeit one with an unusual pay structure. But that's semantics.

Edit: I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant.

I play satellites for two reasons:

1. I play SNGs so it's really just like playing a $22 or $33 and I treat it the same way. I find the skill level even lower in the satellites, though, so it's a good place to play.

2. When I tell my wife at dinner time "I'm in the Super again" she takes it much easier if I say I did it on a $22 satellite than that I plopped down $165 of our kid's college tuition.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I play satellites for two reasons:

1. I play SNGs so it's really just like playing a $22 or $33 and I treat it the same way. I find the skill level even lower in the satellites, though, so it's a good place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense to play them for that reason.

[ QUOTE ]
2. When I tell my wife at dinner time "I'm in the Super again" she takes it much easier if I say I did it on a $22 satellite than that I plopped down $165 of our kid's college tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if you're dealing with non-players who don't know the math behind successful gambling, then it's a valid excuse.

[Ulysses]

N,

I will sometimes play a satellite to a tournament because I am willing to invest $x and/or x amount of time to play in a tourney, but not the full amount of the buyin. I imagine that is the case for a fair number of cash game players who play these things.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

I will sometimes play a satellite to a tournament because I am willing to invest $x and/or x amount of time to play in a tourney, but not the full amount of the buyin. I imagine that is the case for a fair number of cash game players who play these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so... let's say you want to play in a $1K WCOOP event. You're willing to invest $x and y hours to satellite in.

You don't think you could win $1K at a cash game with a similar investment of $x and in less than y hours?

And what's the point of the idea of an investment of $x?

I personally think that satellites exist for two reasons, only one of which benefits the good players:

1) Generate more rake (not really helpful for good players)
2) Put a lot of low limit donkeys into big events (a HUGE boost that generates a ton of dead money and is one of the greatest things to ever happen to big $ MTTs)

[shaniac]

Hmmmm...thinly disguised spam, a cheap shot at a poker player who makes more money in his sleep that you ever will in your dreams, and the point of it is....that tournaments are high variance?

Good thing we have geniuses like you around to tell us what's what.

[Exitonly]

Wow, what crawled up your ass?

He asked Justin if he could do it, he made a good point, and i really doubt that most posters here realze that huge swingy-ness in these things.

[MLG]

usually I like your moral compass shane, but I think your pretty far off here.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm...thinly disguised spam, a cheap shot at a poker player who makes more money in his sleep that you ever will in your dreams, and the point of it is....that tournaments are high variance?

Good thing we have geniuses like you around to tell us what's what.

[/ QUOTE ]

N82 and I are friends and he got my permission before posting this. It certainly was not a cheap shot.

[ZeeJustin]

When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with ZJ here, that is the proper way to think about satellites IMO.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this generally but its probably worth qualifying it to say that this is true only for the professional player. for the recreational player, while its not wise in terms of bankroll management, sometimes the "thrill" of playing in a bigger tournament (depending on the player, this could be the WSOP or the PP Mill. Guaranteed) makes up for the bad money management.

And of course, we're how you guys make all your money /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this generally but its probably worth qualifying it to say that this is true only for the professional player. for the recreational player, while its not wise in terms of bankroll management, sometimes the "thrill" of playing in a bigger tournament (depending on the player, this could be the WSOP or the PP Mill. Guaranteed) makes up for the bad money management.

And of course, we're how you guys make all your money /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was considering whether or not that I should edit my previous post and say this only applies to players that rely on poker for income, but I figured that much is implied in a post like that.

[N 82 50 24]

Well yea, if you're just playing for the thrill or to take your shot, then sure, it's fine to try to take that shot.

But mathematically sound gambling doesn't have much room for satellites for the most part (unless, like I said, you're a bigger favorite there than your regular game).

[ansky451]

I agree with all this discussion of satellites, BUT, I have 1 problem.

If it makes no sense to try to qualify for a tournament you wouldn't consider buying in direct to, then there aren't very many people in the world who *should* play the world series. I mean, using the 100 buy-in benchmark is 1 million dollars, and there are very few players in the world with 1m dollar bankrolls.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm...thinly disguised spam, a cheap shot at a poker player who makes more money in his sleep that you ever will in your dreams, and the point of it is....that tournaments are high variance?

Good thing we have geniuses like you around to tell us what's what.

[/ QUOTE ]

N82 and I are friends and he got my permission before posting this. It certainly was not a cheap shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, I was kidding. N 82 and I are friends, too, and I think his work with thepokerdb is actually quite amazing. In fact, I've said before "the pokerdb is more entertaining than tv."

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
there aren't very many people in the world who *should* play the world series

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. Are you telling me out of the 6,000 people that play this tournament, they're not all winning players ?!??!?!?!?!? Who would playa $10,000 event if they weren't a winning player !?!??!?!?!?

Edited to add: ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? ?!?!

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all this discussion of satellites, BUT, I have 1 problem.

If it makes no sense to try to qualify for a tournament you wouldn't consider buying in direct to, then there aren't very many people in the world who *should* play the world series. I mean, using the 100 buy-in benchmark is 1 million dollars, and there are very few players in the world with 1m dollar bankrolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it doesn't make sense for most players to use $ from their own roll to play in 10K events on a regular basis, I'd agree with that. But let's say someone has a 200K roll, taking one shot at a 10K event isn't going to stop them from playing their normal game. If they want to continue to play 10K events, they're going to have to work something out though... or cash huge very early on.

[ZeeJustin]

And btw, the 100 buying bankroll for MTT's is [censored]. 30-40 is standard for SNGs, and if you think MTT's only have 2-3x more variance, you are out of your mind.

Edit: Actually, I might be being a bit harsh here, but I doubt it. I"m gonna run some sims and actually quantify the variance of MTT's.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation in a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, same field size (for the sake of controls on the argument assume field size is constant), that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm pretty sure this is not true. if you're playing to qualify for a larger, $2500 tourney, then your variance in that MTT is going to be way larger, b/c the variance in the $2500 event is enormous. Maybe on average you only spend $12-1500 in sats to qualify, but then a $12-1500 tourney would probably be above your BR (if you're a $250 MTT player)

The only way it reduces variance is if you had the BR ,and were planning on probably buying in anyways (or at least considering buying in). then playing the sats would of course be lower variance than buying directly into the big event.

The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I recommend all the time when low stakes players emailing me saying "omg, I won an entry into the 215, tell me how to win it!"

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
And btw, the 100 buying bankroll for MTT's is [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

100 is fine IMO. esp if you're willing to drop down buyins if you run real bad. and even moreso if MTTs aren't your main source of income.

But of course, its very dependant on how good you are. 100 buyins might be a bit short if you're a 50% ROI or less. but if you're in the 200%+ range, then you could get away with much less.

Sklansky showed results from MTT sims in Poker, gaming and life (i think), and i believe that losing 80 buyins was very unlikely for a winning player. they were only for 200 people fields i think. bigger fields will of course increase variance, but i believe not quite as much as it may seem, since finishing in the top .5% usually still nets a pretty decent payout, regardless of field size.

obv. if MTT events are your only source of income, and you're too stubborn to ever move down in stakes then you'd probably want 250+ buyins. but i doubt many people fall into that catagory.

[LearnedfromTV]

Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. i understand what you're saying. and i think its very false.

if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

to play sats for $2500 events, you should at least have the BR to play in $1500-$2000 events.

[ansky451]

Hey Zee, way to completely misunderstand my post!

The point im making is that if you want to play within your bankroll for MTTs, there are very very few people in the world who should play the world series or other large buy ins. I have no idea where you got this from: [ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me out of the 6,000 people that play this tournament, they're not all winning players

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about the quality of their play, merely that virtually everyone who wins seats into big buy in tournaments is playing over their bankroll.

I just used the 100 buy in as a random benchmark, not that its realistic. So if we were to say that 500 buy ins is appropriate, than there is practically no one who would be playing a 10k event within their own bankroll "parameters."


Please, be more condenscending next time, I didn't get enough of it in your last response.

[Blindcurve]

[ QUOTE ]
Another good example of MTT play is something like a role playing game. If you roll a 4+ 10 times in a row, you win the tournament. So what? A fish could do the same thing. But the advantage you get over being a better player is that you get yourselves into slightly better rolls. A bad player may have to roll a 5+ 10 times in a row. It really adds up over the long run.

Anyway, good job ZJ. MTG players represent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this example. RPGers represent.

As for MTT ROI%, I sort of thought the entire idea of playing these tournaments was to essentially break even until your big score. I always thought there were a lot of winning MTTers here simply because their cashes tended to be larger than the sum of their buy-ins. I'm starting to think this is more rare than I realized.

Clearly, because of the time it takes to accumulate a significant sample size, where you are in this buy-in/cash cycle has little bearing on how good you are as a player- other than how your perception of your progress affects your game.

I'd imagine the better you are, the less this perception affects you.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. i understand what you're saying. and i think its very false.

if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

to play sats for $2500 events, you should at least have the BR to play in $1500-$2000 events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the second paragraph?

What I have been doing lately is diversifying. I play a certain number of SNGs a day with a very safe bankroll. I play a few MTTs a day with a very safe bankroll. I play 3-5 MTTs a week that is beyond my bankroll if you use the 100xbuyin formula.

This is my formula for at least "breaking even" over the short to medium term while holding out hope of cashing some big events every once and awhile. I am a part-time self-employed lawyer, though, so I am in a very different situation then someone who is depending on monthly income from playing poker.

I would love it if someone tells me this is not a good approach I am taking.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. i understand what you're saying. and i think its very false.

if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

to play sats for $2500 events, you should at least have the BR to play in $1500-$2000 events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the second paragraph?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. but my point is that for somebody with a BR for $2500 buyin, the variance in $250 MTTs is quite small.

Playing in $250 sats will have lower variance than straight buying into the $2500 events always, yes.

But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]

But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

??????????

A 500 man tourney that gives 50 prizes of equal value has more variance than a 500 man tourney where half of the money goes to the top three? Wow.

A satellite can pay a significantly lower % of the field and still have lower variance.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er... i think it is true. But it depends which sat you're talking about, and which MTT. But a flatter payout format will have lower variance.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

??????????

A 500 man tourney that gives 50 prizes of equal value has more variance than a 500 man tourney where half of the money goes to the top three? Wow.

A satellite can pay a significantly lower % of the field and still have lower variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

UGH...

IF you're playing the $250 sat. with the plan of selling the $2500 seat, then yes, you're correct. the $250 sat has less variance. That is obvious.

However, normally you're playing the sat in order to win a seat and play the larger event. this will be WAY more variance than a normal $250 buyin MTT.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

??????????

A 500 man tourney that gives 50 prizes of equal value has more variance than a 500 man tourney where half of the money goes to the top three? Wow.

A satellite can pay a significantly lower % of the field and still have lower variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

UGH...

IF you're playing the $250 sat. with the plan of selling the $2500 seat, then yes, you're correct. the $250 sat has less variance. That is obvious.

However, normally you're playing the sat in order to win a seat and play the larger event. this will be WAY more variance than a normal $250 buyin MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you are rolled to play the 2500 and will buyin if you don't win in, an assumption which was stated throughout. If you're going to join a discussion late at least read and understand what's been said already.

[trevor]

[ QUOTE ]
There's been a lot of talk lately about ZeeJustin, MTT ROI, variance, etc. I want to present some data that I have on Justin, strictly on PokerStars. Justin agreed to let me do this.

Okay, first, a quick word about the data I have. It's PokerStars MTTs from February 9th 2004 until virtually current (early on Monday morning, 12/12). I also have what I believe to be almost all of the $215 events (I know of a few I'm missing that I'm planning to database soon). It's not complete. I know it would be better if I had Party too, but I don't. Anyway, on to the analysis.

Clearly, he's not among the most frequent MTTs on Stars, but he's still playing enough to get an idea of where he stands. I know, from a statistical perspective, he has to play a ton of MTTs for it to be "significant" that he's a winning/losing player. However, I think as someone plays more and more, you can say with more confidence whether they are or aren't beating the game. With MTTs, nothing, it seems, is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt -- so this doesn't proven Justin is a winning or losing player, it just improves our ability to guess.

One major problem with our sample is that it has a lot of big field tournaments in it. One would expect to miss the final table pretty much all of the time in these 3000+ person tournaments, but that isn't the case in the smaller 109r. Even the Stupers (the Stars Super) have a pretty decent size field. Nonetheless, I proceed.

Here is a general breakdown of Justin's stats, sorted by # played:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/generalstats.JPG

Here is a breakdown of his biggest cashes:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/biggestcashes.JPG

Now, that's kind of a shocking image. Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true. This is where the trolls usually come out and say: "but, if you take out those two cashes, he's a losing player" or "he just got lucky, the rest of the time shows his true skill - ie, he sucks." Well, in a sense, those trolls are correct. Here are his overall results, to my best knowledge:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/overall.JPG

His ITM is about right... usually 10% of the field gets paid, but he doesn't play to get into the money. The FT rate and top 3 rate are hard to analyze because he plays so many big field tourneys. His avg finish is better than avg, although not by much. Across all the players I've looked at, very few are in the 30s. Most winning players hang around the 40-45 mark. However, his ROI is pretty telling. He's more than tripled his investment on Stars on avg in a tourney. A good player can probably expect to have a 2-4x the buyin expectation, so this seems just about right to me.

If you take out the two wins, he's DOWN over $20K on Stars in that time period in MTTs. That's true as far as I can tell. However, Justin clearly isn't looking for consistency with his game selection... he's looking for big scores. I don't think he'd want to slowly build up his profit $200 at a time in 5 dollar rebuy tournaments. The whole point of playing 3500 person $200 tourneys is to bust out 50 times, win once and be ahead $100K at the end of the day. Justin knows that and he expects, over the long term, to lose most of the time (although he obviously hopes any given week is an exception). The point is you can't say "but if you take away that one win" without saying "but if you take away all those losses" as well.

Another point trolls might make is that he just got lucky yesterday. True, he did. But, like I've mentioned, the big field tourneys are about just hitting it over and over until you break through. Sunday was Justin's day. He's put himself in position to win the Sunday tournament a number of times. I recall one Big Sunday tourney on Stars where Justin had a very healthy stack deep (less than 100 people left), poised to roll over the final table. He got in pre flop with AA v AQ against another healthy stack -- and the board comes with two queens. A great opportunity lost. But that's poker... keep putting yourself in a good spot, things will eventually work out. Just because he won some key races and didn't get unlucky doesn't just make him a bad player.

Anyway, congrats to Justin on his performance on Sunday. It was clearly deserved and was the culmination of years of effort looking for a huge cash on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is the point of this post? This was lame. Can you give me the last 5 min of my life back?

[Exitonly]

i dont like how you're looking at this. the variance a tournament has is the same if you win a 250 satelite or if you buy in directly.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is the point of this post? This was lame. Can you give me the last 5 min of my life back?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst response to any post, ever.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
What I have been doing lately is diversifying. I play a certain number of SNGs a day with a very safe bankroll. I play a few MTTs a day with a very safe bankroll. I play 3-5 MTTs a week that is beyond my bankroll if you use the 100xbuyin formula.

This is my formula for at least "breaking even" over the short to medium term while holding out hope of cashing some big events every once and awhile. I am a part-time self-employed lawyer, though, so I am in a very different situation then someone who is depending on monthly income from playing poker.

I would love it if someone tells me this is not a good approach I am taking.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing for fun or in hopes of just making a big score or two, then just about any approach is probably fine as long as you can continue to fund your poker with your regular job.

If you're approaching it mathematically with the goal of making as much money as possible within the time you're willing to commit while not going broke, then I think it's a poor approach to do what you're doing. What you need to do is figure out where you're most profitable. For me, I've found it to be STTs on Party. I can 8 table them and maintain almost the same ROI as I achieve when I used to 2 table them. On the other hand, I'm a net loser in MTTs (doesn't necessarily say much, I haven't played that many) and I'm a streaky cash games player at any reasonable limit. Therefore, I play STTs when I want to make money playing poker because it's where I can make the most per hour and be fairly confident I'll never go broke. I play well below my bankroll.

The idea of trying to break even is a little foreign to me and I don't know exactly why people like to try to do this. I think your goal should be to apply your edge, that's it. Let's say you have a 30% ROI on Party STTs over 8000 -- it's a number you can be fairly confident in. So you decide to play $50 STTs expecting to make $15/per. Just play as many as possible... and if you play 20 of them, look at it as if you just earned yourself $300 because, over the long term, that's what you're going to make in that situation. The same idea applies in cash games, MTTs (although the realization of that wage can take years to occur), etc.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it seemed like you were saying that $250 sats have lower variance than $250 MTTs. this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

??????????

A 500 man tourney that gives 50 prizes of equal value has more variance than a 500 man tourney where half of the money goes to the top three? Wow.

A satellite can pay a significantly lower % of the field and still have lower variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

UGH...

IF you're playing the $250 sat. with the plan of selling the $2500 seat, then yes, you're correct. the $250 sat has less variance. That is obvious.

However, normally you're playing the sat in order to win a seat and play the larger event. this will be WAY more variance than a normal $250 buyin MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you are rolled to play the 2500 and will buyin if you don't win in, an assumption which was stated throughout. If you're going to join a discussion late at least read and understand what's been said already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...

I did read the entire thread.

I understand that buying into $2500 tourneys is higher variance than using $250 sats to get in. I don't know why you seem to think i'm saying different. you should be listening to your own words, and reading the entire post of mine. How many times do i need to repeat myself.

My point is that buying into $250 MTTs has lower variance than the $250 sats. this is certainly true. think about it some before misreading something i said in order to be able to disagree.

Assume a BR requirement of 100 buyins. even if its low as ZJ says, it really doesn't matter for the example. Anyways. for $250 MTTs, you'd need a BR of $25,000. For $2500 MTTs, you'd need $250,000. To play sats, you'd need a BR of close to the bigger event, but maybe say 70-80%. That would be a $175-200,000 BR.

I'm not sure, my math degree is from a U.C. school, not some fancy Ivy league. But i'm still smart enough to be confident in the fact that 175,000 > 25,000.

To me, when tournament A requires a BR of 7 or 8 times the BR needed for tournament B... its pretty safe to say that tourney A has more variance than tourney B

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, be more condenscending next time, I didn't get enough of it in your last response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, sorry. I just think the WSOP is a bad example since very few of those players are pros, and as I've already said, my comments only apply to pros.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that buying into $250 MTTs has lower variance than the $250 sats. this is certainly true. think about it some before misreading something i said in order to be able to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?


and

[ QUOTE ]

To me, when tournament A requires a BR of 7 or 8 times the BR needed for tournament B... its pretty safe to say that tourney A has more variance than tourney B

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i'm wrong, but this seems like a really bad comparison. Just because a tournament is 7 or 8x more expensive, does not mean it has 7 or 8x the variance. The variance is the same (measure in terms of buyins, not dollars).

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is that buying into $250 MTTs has lower variance than the $250 sats. this is certainly true. think about it some before misreading something i said in order to be able to disagree.

Assume a BR requirement of 100 buyins. even if its low as ZJ says, it really doesn't matter for the example. Anyways. for $250 MTTs, you'd need a BR of $25,000. For $2500 MTTs, you'd need $250,000. To play sats, you'd need a BR of close to the bigger event, but maybe say 70-80%. That would be a $175-200,000 BR.

I'm not sure, my math degree is from a U.C. school, not some fancy Ivy league. But i'm still smart enough to be confident in the fact that 175,000 > 25,000.

To me, when tournament A requires a BR of 7 or 8 times the BR needed for tournament B... its pretty safe to say that tourney A has more variance than tourney B

[/ QUOTE ]

AHHHHHH! Of course satelliting into events over you bankroll that you would never play otherwise increases your variance! I've said this already, but it's not the point.

The premise is that we're dealing with someone who is bankrolled (or close to it) for the higher buyin. Same guy also plays lower buyin events (in the case of 2500's, it's because they don't run often enough). Because he plays the higher buyin events anyway, to him, every higher buyin ticket he wins is equivalent to cash. So on all those days when there is no higher buyin event avaliable, he can make his decision as to which type of lower buyin event to play without considering the variance of the higher buyin event. Any time he chooses to play the lower buyin event with lower variance, he lowers his overall variance.

To put it in terms of your bankroll requirements. We're talking about a guy with 175-200K who mostly only gets to play 200's. tThe question is which type of 200 is lower variance for him. Since tickets to 2500's are within his bankroll and thus as good as cash to him from a risk perspective, the answer is satellites. As I said elsewhere, granted this is the guy least concerned about variance in 200's, but that doesn't make it less true!

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're approaching it mathematically with the goal of making as much money as possible within the time you're willing to commit while not going broke, then I think it's a poor approach to do what you're doing. What you need to do is figure out where you're most profitable. For me, I've found it to be STTs on Party. I can 8 table them and maintain almost the same ROI as I achieve when I used to 2 table them. On the other hand, I'm a net loser in MTTs (doesn't necessarily say much, I haven't played that many) and I'm a streaky cash games player at any reasonable limit. Therefore, I play STTs when I want to make money playing poker because it's where I can make the most per hour and be fairly confident I'll never go broke. I play well below my bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important concept that I think a lot of winning players either don't think about, or just don't apply enough.

I sure know that I was a fulltime pro for quite some time before I REALLY started thinking about this in a productive way, and i'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one.

Its really pretty simple. you just have to think about how much you expect to make per table hour of each different type of game, and how conducive that game is to multitabling.

For example, when i multitabled LHE, I had to decide whether to play 10/20 6m, or 15/30 full ring. I figured that 15/30 was about $30 per table hour (approx 1.5 BB/100). And 10/20 was about $40 per table hour (2 BB/100). however, I could only play 4-5 tables of 6max, vs. 6-8 of fullring, so my $$/hr was $180-240 vs. $160-200 in favor of 15/30. So it seemed that playing 15/30 was the clear choice.

however, after a few months it became clear that another factor was much more important if the EVs are close. Enjoying a game more is HUGE. its so much easier to log hours, and much easier to be constantly improving when you genuinely love to play. The long term benefits of this are quite obvious.

Another factor which is also very key is availability of larger games. When I first started playing I was a NL player, but I switched over to LHE b/c at the time Party had TONS of 15/30 LHE games, and very few decent sized NLHE cash games. And ironically, the newer large NL games (along with the fact that party's 30/60 is TOUGH) are the reason i've switched back to NLHE primarily. Also, its the main thing I don't like about STTs. Above $215's don't run all the time, and from what i've heard the competition is VERY, VERY tough in them. Thankfully MTTs have sats, so even in a 10k WPT event, I can be confident that i'll have +EV.

I know a lot of the $$ per table hour stuff sounds really trivial, and stupid, but I honestly believe that it is one of the more underrated attributes of maximizing earn. And, IMO, its also why GOOD WR and variance threads can be very helpful if a lot of expierienced, winning players contribute.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that buying into $250 MTTs has lower variance than the $250 sats. this is certainly true. think about it some before misreading something i said in order to be able to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?


and

[ QUOTE ]

To me, when tournament A requires a BR of 7 or 8 times the BR needed for tournament B... its pretty safe to say that tourney A has more variance than tourney B

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i'm wrong, but this seems like a really bad comparison. Just because a tournament is 7 or 8x more expensive, does not mean it has 7 or 8x the variance. The variance is the same (measure in terms of buyins, not dollars).

[/ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is that if you are only rolled for the 200's, playing $200 satellites increases your variance because the prize forces you to play over your bankroll. That is, a ticket to a $2500 is not equivalent to cash to someone with $25000; it is significantly riskier than cash that he could wager at the proper levels. You are right that playing a higher buyin might have the same variance relative to the buyin (the roll for 2500's might just be a matter of scale compared to the roll for 200's), but relative to the bankroll of the player who is rolled for 200's, the variance per dollar of bankroll is obviously much higher. If you have 25000 and play events that you need 200000 for, you will experience greater variance in your bankroll than someone with 200000. This is common knowledge. Phrasing must be throwing you off.

This doesn't conflict with what I am saying and I can't figure why he thinks it does.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I recommend all the time when low stakes players emailing me saying "omg, I won an entry into the 215, tell me how to win it!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine why you would disuade a low-limit player from trying to parlay his satellite win into a good experience in the Sunday MTT.

Not everyone focuses on the minutae of bankroll management and constantly getting the best of it down to every last penny. If you're bankroll is $200 and you turn $27 of it into a seat in the Stars 500K, why the hell not take a shot at the real deal.

[Melchiades]

If your bankroll is 200 and you play a $27 sat you clearly don't give a [censored] about bankroll managment anyways, so I agree. Take a shot.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
AHHHHHH! Of course satelliting into events over you bankroll that you would never play otherwise increases your variance!

[/ QUOTE ]

YES!!! however, I think that this is one of the more common mistakes in BR management that TONS of winning players (myslef included) commit. I doubt many people on here could say that they've never played sats for events that they don't even have half the BR to buyin directly to. I know its considered "taking a shot" or whatever, but IMO its a very poor way to take your shot. say you've got a $25,000 BR. So playing $250 tourneys is within BR. a lot of people would assume that if they want to "take a shot" they should play a $250 buyin to a $2500 event. this is stupid. It would be much better to say, buyin to a few $500 tourneys, or maybe a $1000 tourney. It's WAAAAAY more effective.


And anyways, for the player with a $200k BR, yeah, playing the smaller sats might be a good idea if he's got good EV in them, but assuming he's not going to sell his seat, his variance WILL NOT decrease by playing $250 sats over $250 MTTs. He's not MAKING $2500 each time he wins. I'm not too up on expectations on these things, but i'll assume he's at least a pretty good winner and qualifies 1/6. So on average, he'll spend $1500 to get into the $2500 event. So you could say he ahs a pretty good EV in the sats, but the thing is, its still no different than him buying into the big tourney for a discounted $1500. Now, how is it that a $1500 MTT can have less variance than a $250 MTT.

Or, think about how often that $250 gets turned into a big score. we'll say top .5% is a big score. and lets say this player finishes in the top .5% double his share, since he's good. Well, entering into a $250 MTT, he'll obv get in there 1% of the time. and if he put that $250 to a sat, he's turn it into a big score, 1/6(1%), or .16% of the time. granted his scores will be much bigger when he turns his sat into a cash, but thats just the point. the variance is quite huge.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe i'm wrong, but this seems like a really bad comparison. Just because a tournament is 7 or 8x more expensive, does not mean it has 7 or 8x the variance. The variance is the same (measure in terms of buyins, not dollars).

[/ QUOTE ]

well yeah. but i'm talking in sheer dollar amounts, b/c thats usually the most useful way to look at it since your BR isn't infinite.

He was saying, i thought, that $250 sats would decrease variance compared to $250 MTTs. This is untrue.

Say your BR is 100k. if you played only $250 sats into bigger events, your risk of ruin would be WAY higher than if you played only $250 MTTs with their 100k BR.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]

And anyways, for the player with a $200k BR, yeah, playing the smaller sats might be a good idea if he's got good EV in them, but assuming he's not going to sell his seat, his variance WILL NOT decrease by playing $250 sats over $250 MTTs. He's not MAKING $2500 each time he wins. I'm not too up on expectations on these things, but i'll assume he's at least a pretty good winner and qualifies 1/6. So on average, he'll spend $1500 to get into the $2500 event. So you could say he ahs a pretty good EV in the sats, but the thing is, its still no different than him buying into the big tourney for a discounted $1500. Now, how is it that a $1500 MTT can have less variance than a $250 MTT.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only part you are getting wrong. Winning a seat is the no different from winning cash to him because he is going to buy in anyway. Winning a $2500 seat by investing $1500 in satellites is exactly equivalent to winning $2500 cash by playing $1500 worth of lower buyin multis (assuming these are his expectation in each).

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]

Say your BR is 100k. if you played only $250 sats into bigger events, your risk of ruin would be WAY higher than if you played only $250 MTTs with their 100k BR.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the risk of ruin of playing

A. $250's most of the time and enough $250 satellites to get into all the bigger events is lower than

B. $250 buyins most of the time and also bought in directly to as many 2500 events as you could have satellited into.

Notice that if you assume playing the same hours, the difference betwen A and B is that some of the $250 buyins in B are replaced by $250 satellites in A.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that if you assume playing the same hours, the difference betwen A and B is that some of the $250 buyins in B are replaced by $250 satellites in A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. but I think its debatable who needs more BR for this example. b/c if on average you're playing 6 $250 sats per week (say the $2500 is weekly) instead of 6 $250 MTTs, then yes, you'll reduce the amount you spend per week slightly b/c you'll only be paying $1500 for the big ones each week. however, you'll also be missing out on a lot of pretty good cashes in the $250 MTTs. Those good sized scores will help a lot in terms of evening out your swings.

I mean if i said you only had time for 7 tourneys a week, on average, I think you'd need a bigger bankroll to play an average of 6 sats plus the big event than you would to play 6 $250 tourneys and just buyin to the $2500 tourney.

Bankroll management is teh suck. I love living on the edge.

Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[Skjonne]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Can't a mod lock this thread before even more people who didn't read OP's post reply?

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you graduated high school? Understand reading comprehension much?

The only problem is that you show Justin's results after he won. If you show the results of a random player (who could also have won recently... or not!) then this type of analysis make more sense.

Why you don't have any information on other websites??? They don't want to share, too much work???

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[ActionJeff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree completely. That reraise with AQss was ridiculous. The fact is, ZeeJustin had a healthy stack when that hand occured and was competely unjustified in taking such a gigantic risk. When a tight, early position player who has nearly as many chips as you do raises 1/3 of their stack, AQss is an extremely marginal hand to play, and reraising assuming he had fold equity was a pretty terrible play by Justin. Of course, we all know what happened that hand... unreal.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. That reraise with AQss was ridiculous. The fact is, ZeeJustin had a healthy stack when that hand occured and was competely unjustified in taking such a gigantic risk. When a tight, early position player who has nearly as many chips as you do raises 1/3 of their stack, AQss is an extremely marginal hand to play, and reraising assuming he had fold equity was a pretty terrible play by Justin. Of course, we all know what happened that hand... unreal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall reraising an EP raisor with AQs ever. What hand are you talking about? Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure seems that way.

[KaneKungFu123]

Are live tournaments deeper then online tournies?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed a LOT of sarcasm.

[M.B.E.]

Is it true that with a 10% payout structure, good players, on average, are ITM only a little more than 10%? I would have guessed it is closer to 20%.

I understand your point that good players are aiming for the final table, not just to make it past the bubble, but even so: there are so many bad players who finish out of the money much more than 90% of the time.

[Johnnyj580]

[ QUOTE ]


He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous.

[/ QUOTE ]


Easier said than done. Everytime I go to his site to catch up on any big scores he's recently made, I'M JEALOUS.

I drew a table with Zee and Emptyseat88 in the WCOOP 7Hi/Lo. I was extremely impressed with Zee's play, but not so much as the 'other guy' (who happened to finish in the top 3). (Also: I played like [censored] crap in this tourney)


John
-What I wouldn't give to pick his brain for one day when he plays 50 $200+15 SNGs

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall reraising an EP raisor with AQs ever. What hand are you talking about? Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember seeing you win a race with AQ close to the end. But I don't remember any other details.

[ QUOTE ]
if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to Erik Lindgren: Even if online poker is not my thing, there are innumerable ways for the small time player (me!) to enter big-time tournaments without paying the full entry fee, which will often be $10,000 or more (gasp!). (How Erik?) Believe it or not, it's easy to get the the World Poker Tour. He'll show me not just how to get there, but how to win there.

So take that you 500 buy-in ninnies. I have a book, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[MicroBob]

okay...it's late (or really early now actually, whatever) and I'm lazy and can't make it through this whole thread.

But I'm curious about this whole bit about 'should be just about bankrolled to buy-in directly into the event anyway' bit that's been argued about.
Surely Zee didn't have a huge enough bankroll to actually afford all these $10k events on his own (if we're talking $1-mil or more) when he played them.

It seems to me that if you already have the bankroll for them then playing satellites to get into them is effectively wasting your time.


Lets look at someone who has $30k or so and plays the $215's on Stars. Is he really going to waste his time playing the satellites there? Isn't he better off just buying-in directly?


But some of you guys seem to be saying that if he DOESN'T have this much he shouldn't be playing the satellites in the first place (this is assuming he's playing the 215's and isn't keeping the dough himself).


Somewhere in there the satellites have to be generally +EV.
But it seems like we have a situation where if you have too small a bankroll then it's irresponsible to waste your money trying for big scores like this....and if you have the full bankroll then your time is certainly better spent making more money actually playing these events then it would be playing piddly, teeny satellites to try to get into them.

Somewhere in the middle where these satellites would actually be +EV seems to be a VERY narrow area.



Basically I think the point of the satellites is to cut your losses here.
If I want to just have one extra table up there for satellite purposes then I can dedicate just $50 to trying to win my WSOP seat via Stars and that will very likely be enough to last me a long time if I want it to.
I play enough of the $2 rebuys to win W$33 at a shot. Then when I've run that up to $200 or so I can start trying the $5-rebuys into the $175 double-shootout. I can cash-out the $175 if I want and keep building or I can take my 1-in-81 shot right there.
whatever.
Yes, technically I can take the $300 in W$ I've won (or whatever) and just exchange it for cash so this is still just spending our own money.
So are satellites just a weird form of money-management and shot-taking combined?
I'm not going to lose my $50....when I get knocked out of the big satellite then I start over at $50 or $100 or whatever and go back to the $2-rebuys I guess.


I like to think that satellites are a decent idea at some point and aren't just part of that very narrow middle-ground.
But it really probably is just a combo of shot-taking and money-management.


I certainly am now about to buy-in to one of the big events. But I am playing the satellites (both the lower ones to win tourney-dollars because I believe they are +EV for me....and then using some of that for occasional 'shots' at the $380 for the France EPT or something for example).

Does this mean that I'm self-delusional about the timw that I sometimes spend/waste in pursuit of the occasional major land-based tourney?

Sigh.


I'll go back and read through more of the thread later when I think I'll be able to understand more of it.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that I'm self-delusional about the timw that I sometimes spend/waste in pursuit of the occasional major land-based tourney?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. When I said that to play the $250 sats for $2500 events you'd need close to the BR that you'd need for the $2500 events themselves, that is assuming you're playing those as a major source of your income. and because the variance in those things along is very big you'd need a huge BR to handle the swings. sure, its only $250 each investment, but only its only 2% or so that the $250 is turned into something. and MUCH, MUCH less that its turned into a BIG score.

when you're just "taking a shot" in a few of them, its different, but I think not as much different as most might think. So, in the case of somebody taking a shot to try and get in a 10k event, they won't need close to a $1 mil roll. but they should have just about enough that they'd feel OK taking a shot by buying directly into the 10k event. So, if you felt like you could take a shot at a 10k event with a 125-150k roll, then it'd probably be fine to play the sats with a 75-100k roll. Of course these numbers are pretty arbitrary, but i do think that in terms of risk of ruin, and bankroll growth, you need a much bigger roll for these sats than most people would think.

In the end, it just really comes down to how much EV you have in the sats, but you have to take into account that the variance is quite high if you plan on playing the bigger event rather than selling your seat. If, however, you're planning on getting cash instead, then some sats can have an enormous EV in relation to variance. but most big events don't even allow you to sell your first seat.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to Erik Lindgren: Even if online poker is not my thing, there are innumerable ways for the small time player (me!) to enter big-time tournaments without paying the full entry fee, which will often be $10,000 or more (gasp!). (How Erik?) Believe it or not, it's easy to get the the World Poker Tour. He'll show me not just how to get there, but how to win there.

So take that you 500 buy-in ninnies. I have a book, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I read Lindgrens book. There was some very good stuff in it, but I didn't like how he tried a little to hard to convince the reader that "they too" could make the big time on the WPT. I mean sure, anyone who can play tournies, and sats well has A CHANCE. but he never quantified just how small that chance is. I just thought it was weird that he spent time to talk about how you need 500 BBs to play LHE, or 10,000 bb's to play NLHE cahs games. but then told the reader that playing sats is a good idea even if the event you're trying to qualify for is more than your current BR.

Sure its great if you get very, very lucky in your first or 2nd big event. but that's so unlikely that most people can find better, more effective ways to take shots, if you really want to hit it big.

[LearnedfromTV]

Bob, good post - my thoughts:

Satellites are a good investment for

- people truly bankrolled for big events (2K+) but who play smaller events when that is all that is available. Basically, using lower-variance satellite events to get into their larger events mitigates the risk of having a bad run with $200-$500 tournaments while they are killing time waiting for the next big event. Even if 2K + events are technically available nearly every week, I'm sure travel logistics often make playing them all impossible.

- people who aren't bankrolled for big events (2K+) but want to take shots at them and are willing to absorb the risk. In some cases these people can be taking a good calculated risk, if their EV in a $2500 tournament is higher than any other available game.

- people who are in the process of moving from medium stakes to higher stakes. I'll use pokerroom for an example because it is what I know best. They have the weekly $320 Big Deal and $40 satellites. Someone with 10K right now but who expects to have 30-40K within a few months could be playing a lot of $50-$100 tournaments *and* the $40 satellites, intending to accumlate tickets to use later. Assuming the ticket value will eventually be within his bankroll, he could even be better off playing the satellites if his EV in them is high enough. (Edit:) This can apply at any level. If you are playing $10 SNG's and $10 MTT's, and winning, you may expect to be playing $50-$100 multis soon enough, and find the $10 satellites to these events extremely soft.

- similar to the second group, people who want to take shots to move up through big MTT scores, perhaps because they feel their EV is greater in a tournament than in any othe form of poker (this is reasonable) and they are willing to take on the bankroll risk for the possible reward. This could be your $30000 player, buying into $215's and $215 satellites to $2000 events. Taken to an extreme this is bad bankroll management (no one with 30K whould be playing a 10K event, unless he's only doing it for the experience), but when done carefully can give a good player a reasonable shot of a huge score, while often at least getting his money back with small cashes while accumulating experience for later.

One thing to think about with respect to variance and taking shots is that playing over your bankroll isn't horrible if you do it occasionally. Plying 12 $2500 tournaments is terrible if you have 30K. playing a bunch of $200's and one $2500 is fine, especially if you get extrinsic value (learning experience, fun) from the $2500.

[LearnedfromTV]

One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of a freeroll doesn't make sense to me... If you really want to take shots, so be it. But still, I don't understand why someone wouldn't play where their $/hour are the highest. If you want to attempt to take $300 and turn it into a WSOP seat, why not play STTs if that's where you're best? If you're truly good at the satellite structure/payouts, THEN play the satellite. Don't play it just because it has a "Satellite to the WSOP" label on it...

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of a freeroll doesn't make sense to me... If you really want to take shots, so be it. But still, I don't understand why someone wouldn't play where their $/hour are the highest. If you want to attempt to take $300 and turn it into a WSOP seat, why not play STTs if that's where you're best? If you're truly good at the satellite structure/payouts, THEN play the satellite. Don't play it just because it has a "Satellite to the WSOP" label on it...

[/ QUOTE ]

The person I'm talking about here is trying to make an economically rational decision; he's saying: To play in the main event would be a great experience. I'm willing to devote $800 and x hours of lost opportunity cost to take a shot at winning the experience, because it has non-monetary value to me.

(But maybe he isn't willing to spend $300 and the many many hours of STT play he would need to take. Because time and money are in a certain sense equivalent, 'taking a shot' in this way is a lot cheaper to him. It's like being willing to try to win $300 by betting 300-1 on a $1 horse, but not being willing to bet $150 on a 2-1, because you'd rather use the $149 for something else. This isn't economcially rational, but the thrill of hitting a 300-1 shot might be worth it to someone. Similarly, the thrill of the WSOP might be worth it to someone, provided it doesn't take too much of his time. He'd rather use the hours of STT play for something else (cash for his regular bankroll).

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
Are live tournaments deeper then online tournies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally yes. The WSOP this year started with 200bb stacks. But I dunno whether the average stack remains at this number throughout the tourney.

[Ulysses]

N,

I don't think you understood my point before. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I make $500/hr playing cash games. So, for me to enter a $10k tourney (including travel expenses let's say $12k), I have to play 24hrs of poker.

I am not a big fan of tournaments, but like to play them from time to time. However, 24 hours of my time (two weeks or more worth of poker for me) is not worth it for the value I personally would get from playing that tournament (combination of fun and EV).

But, if I can play that tournament by investing a few hundred dollars and a few hours in a satellite one evening, that's something I'm willing to do. Obviously, I only have an x% chance of winning, but that's fine. I either win and play or don't win and don't.

I only think your reasoning applies if someone is definitely going to play in the tournament and is going to keep playing satellites until they win a seat. In that case, it makes the most sense to play whatever option is the highest EV for you.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

I don't think you understood my point before. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I make $500/hr playing cash games. So, for me to enter a $10k tourney (including travel expenses let's say $12k), I have to play 24hrs of poker.

I am not a big fan of tournaments, but like to play them from time to time. However, 24 hours of my time (two weeks or more worth of poker for me) is not worth it for the value I personally would get from playing that tournament (combination of fun and EV).

But, if I can play that tournament by investing a few hundred dollars and a few hours in a satellite one evening, that's something I'm willing to do. Obviously, I only have an x% chance of winning, but that's fine. I either win and play or don't win and don't.

I only think your reasoning applies if someone is definitely going to play in the tournament and is going to keep playing satellites until they win a seat. In that case, it makes the most sense to play whatever option is the highest EV for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I see what you're saying and it makes sense in that context.

I just have a different mindset and I don't gamble for fun, so that's where we differ.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are live tournaments deeper then online tournies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally yes. The WSOP this year started with 200bb stacks. But I dunno whether the average stack remains at this number throughout the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the deep stack tournaments on Stars offer just about as much play as any live or online tournament anywhere.

[Ulysses]

N,

Do you like blackjack and craps?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

Do you like blackjack and craps?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, never played either one... although I've been to AC with my friend Steve (aka stevesbets) and I've watched a bit of craps. I don't really understand why people like that game.

[Ulysses]

N,

Craps and blackjack are really fun. In a casino, craps is just about the greatest thing ever.

I assume you were at a bad table. If you are at a hot table with lots of hot chicks cheering and everyone is drinking and having a great time and getting PAID, well, how can you not love that game?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

Craps and blackjack are really fun. In a casino, craps is just about the greatest thing ever.

I assume you were at a bad table. If you are at a hot table with lots of hot chicks cheering and everyone is drinking and having a great time and getting PAID, well, how can you not love that game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah, yea, must have been at a bad table, because it wasn't anything like that... couple random drunks fools and some old guys who appeared to be convinced they had a strategy to win (they were arguing about which #s to bet on and how to hold the dice when they roll). Was actually kinda sad.

[ QUOTE ]
couple random drunks fools and some old guys who appeared to be convinced they had a strategy to win (they were arguing about which #s to bet on and how to hold the dice when they roll).

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhhhhh. Don't give this out. Are you nuts?

Sounds about as indescribably depressing as when I accidentally wandered into the bingo room at the Nugget in Reno. [violent shudder] Thanks a lot for bringing back that memory.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

I don't think you understood my point before. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I make $500/hr playing cash games. So, for me to enter a $10k tourney (including travel expenses let's say $12k), I have to play 24hrs of poker.

I am not a big fan of tournaments, but like to play them from time to time. However, 24 hours of my time (two weeks or more worth of poker for me) is not worth it for the value I personally would get from playing that tournament (combination of fun and EV).

But, if I can play that tournament by investing a few hundred dollars and a few hours in a satellite one evening, that's something I'm willing to do. Obviously, I only have an x% chance of winning, but that's fine. I either win and play or don't win and don't.

I only think your reasoning applies if someone is definitely going to play in the tournament and is going to keep playing satellites until they win a seat. In that case, it makes the most sense to play whatever option is the highest EV for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I think that shows pretty well that you're really in it for the gamble, fun, excitement side. And thats fine. But, I mean, looking at it from an EV standpoint, it seems you're being very shortsighted when you're weighing options. If your EV in the sats, is only say, $200 an hour, vs. $500 for cash games, then you're going to spend a lot more time to win the same number of seats over a couple years. I mean, i guess if you only want to spend 2-3 hours, ever, in your life on playing sats for a big event, then your reasoning makes sense. but if you do several a year, then it seems that they're a waste of time, as on average you'll spend over 50 hours getting your seat through sats. I mean if your BR is big enough that you can afford to take a shot, you don't necessarily need to play 24 EXTRA hours to make up for it or whatever, b/c theoretically the 10k event should be +EV anyways.

I think that a lot of people on here are looking to maximize EV, and maximize the chances that they'll get the BR to play in these 10k events all the time. Even though its not that realistic for people, most MTTers would like to get to the point where they can play as many major events as they feel like travelling to. And most would prefer to get to that point in as little time as possible.

For most poeple this would mean an exponential growth in their bankroll, say doubling it 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times. When you look at exponential growth, you have to look at highest possible EV/variance ratio... since most people don't particularly want to go broke and have to restart from scratch. For some reason people think their best shot of making a huge score is to play some sats for a big event, and then strike it big one time for a 6 or 7 figure score. The fact is though, this is such a longshot parlay, and the EV in the sats usually isn't THAT high to make up for it.

In this case it is usually about the fun and experience of playing the big event. I know b/c i've done it myself lots of times. I played tons of WSOP ME sats last year when i shouldn't have. I got very close a few times but didn't quite make it. I also played a sat, and qualified for the WPT in AC in sept. Even though I loved the experience, I almost certainly would have sold the 10k ticket if i could have. Its not that I'm a total nit though, b/c even now that i've thought alot more about the riskiness, and poor EV/variance ratio, I still played several Atlantis qualifiers. But for some reason I REALLY, REALLY wanted to go to that one. Kind of as a great vacation, splurge to start a new year thing, but of course with the chance that I could get a great payday. So, although I didn't make it, I still bought in, even though I'm certainly not "properly" rolled. I know from an EV, bankroll growth its almost certianly not the best choice, but it should be pretty damn fun.

[ QUOTE ]
... i really doubt that most posters here realze that huge swingy-ness in these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of who are horseplayers as well as poker players are probably not surprised by these stats. I know I'm not.

Justin's results are akin to a good handicapper who plays only big triples, pick4s and pick6s. Those types won't cash many tickets as opposed to the Win/Place/Show bettors, but when they do, it's usually a biggie.

Looking at those stats, there's no doubt in my mind that Justin is an outstanding player whose recent score was the result a lot of hard work and experience.

Some people here think that any Donk can get lucky in these things. Those types might make it to the top 27 or so, but to make to the final table you have to make 100s of good decisions. It's not Powerball.


Congrats, Justin!