Ready to move up?

[Patriarch]

[ QUOTE ]
Just play 3000 sngs. That way u cant complain against bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly what I was going to say. If you think your winrate is artificially low, keep playing until the beats even out then take a look.

[Blarg]

Well, I tried.

[adanthar]

Bottom line: you are trying fancy plays at times you have no place doing them in, you are playing poker when you shouldn't be and trying to quantify everything as a math problem when you should be playing poker. You're also very results oriented and very quick to demand proof regardless of the number of people who are telling you the same thing. You're not some sort of original rebel thinker going against the orthodoxy; we've all made these mistakes earlier, and they are elementary to fix, but they are, in fact, mistakes.

You've managed to break even after 150 SNG's in a game that a bot that just pushes or folds preflop can beat. Those results are far from meaningless even with a typical small-scale bad beat streak with one particular hand and they should tell you something.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure insufficient sample size but it is worth to stay at a level that can be beat without any problems for an eternity just to determine ones exact win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]
what do you think yer exact win rate would be?

[ QUOTE ]
No seriously are the 55s much harder than the 33s? It seems I could play much better if I just had more starting chips.
In the 33s I achieved an ROI of 0.55% over 132 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]
if u think u will do better, move up. u dont need MY permission. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
It's plays like these that give u a 0.55% ROI.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No thats rather a product of AA losing against 22 and stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]

im assuming 'an stuff' includes other leaks like betting with 1010 in the situation you described? i wonder if you even put the opponent on a hand there, or if you blindly kept firing shots hoping he would fold.. you cant put all of your results on getting sucked out on. it happens. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
However you can say: The chance I hit heads is 50%. I did not hit heads over 100 flips. The chance for this is (1/2)^exp 100. You assume that your winrate is not -100$/100 flips for this game, because the outcome seems highly unlikely to you. You hope that the probabilities will even out at some time, the so called LONG RUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

therefore it would make sense that you understand how many SNGS the long run really is. its a LOT. period. yer sample is equivalent to a speck of dust in the galaxy. aint chit. once you hit 1k sngs, you will be at a planet in the galaxy. around 10k, you will reach solar system status. keep this in mind when looking at short term results. holla

[microbet]

I wonder how much carnage Gigabet's post caused?

He was on the bubble in a high-buyin MTT and significantly overbet the pot. You are early on in a low buyin STT and bet about pot.

All you did was get a busted draw to fold. You would have won the hand if it showed down.

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
In the 33s I achieved an ROI of 0.55% over 132 tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

132 SNGs is a little more than a day's work for some people, and they don't win everyday at all. An ROI of 0.55% over 132 tourneys doesn't say anything whatsoever.

[valenzuela]

yes it does, the poster plays in the 33s and he doensnt have enough understanding about sng since he thinks his stats are enough for conclusions.

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
yes it does, the poster plays in the 33s and he doensnt have enough understanding about sng since he thinks his stats are enough for conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a mighty big assumption. Inferior knowledge of statistics does not necessarily mean that he has inferior knowledge of the game. Without going through his tourney histories, nobody can say that he was or wasn't playing bad.

By the way, I've been noticing a bit of a disturbing trend here and there (including in this post). Too many people have been so quick to judge a negative ROI as bad play over an insignificant sample. However, the same people will consider a high ROI as "unsustainable variance." Remember, variance works two ways. Can I say that someone that has a 50% ROI over 132 SNGs is an awesome player? Of course not! I'm sure there are plenty of terrible players that have run this well over 132 SNGs; that's what keeps them coming back. A negative (or even a positive) ROI over 132 games means nothing, regardless of skill level*.

"Statistically significant" is not just a buzz term people throw around on this board for fun. Luck plays such a huge role in short-term results that no conclusions can be drawn from them. At all.

* I would know. About a year ago I tried my hand at Party SNGs for the first time, and ran obnoxiously well (40%+ ROI) over this large a sample. At that point in time I knew nothing about proper SNG play.