ROI single table tourneys - review, comment, compare

[HC5831]

Ok, I just completed 100 NL 10+1 sng tourneys on Paradise Poker. Here are my results:

+$5.10/tourney
47 top 3 finishes broken down as follows:
18 1st place
13 2nd place
16 3rd place

15 4th place (bubbles)

I'm fairly pleased with my results. I feel that 100 games is enough to show that I can beat the 10+1 sng games on Paradise. I try to place in the money half the time, which I am close to. I also try to win 1 of 5 tourneys, which I am close to also.
I know that the bench mark is +50% ROI. I'd like some comments on my results. How does my porportion of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places look? I'd also like to see some actual numbers of other players. Also, how much harder are the 20+2 and up games to beat than the 10+1 ones? Please give me a break down on the skill level at these levels, and your results there.

Thanks in advance. I find all kinds of useful info on this message board. Hopefully my results will help someone else also. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

HC

[maplepig]

your result looks good. 100 game is enough to show that you are a winner, but it's not enough for estimating ROI. My ROI per 100 game ranges from 12% to 70%

[Gus]

Just a few thoughts about tournament ROI vs ring games... I'm sure there is nothing new in what I'm going to say but here you go...

The conventional wisdom seems to indicate that a good SNG player finishes in the money 50 percent of the time. Let's assume he will then finish first, second or third randomely (when 3 handed, the importance of luck seems to increase). This gives you an average win of 5.66$ for a 10+1 tournament. Let's call it 6$ (say you finish 1st a bit more often than third).

A 10 handed tournament typically takes 1 hour. Since a winning player is supoosed to make 1 BB an hour in a ring game, playing 10+1 tournaments should be the same as playing 3/6 ring games.

However the competition seems to be much weaker in 10+1 tournament than in 3/6 ring (I would probably compare it to 0.5/1.0 ring game or so). Playing 30+3 tournament should be the same as playing 10/20 or there about: here again I think the competition seems much tougher in a 10/20 than in a 30+3 tournament.

For example, I'll be happily playing 30+3 tournament, but I will not sit down in a 10/20 game since I think I do not have the skill needed to beat that game... Therefore I myself brings the skill level of the tournament down compared to the ring games.

This should bring us to either of the 3 conclucions:

(1)... Tournament are more profitable, and more easily beaten if your skill are equal in both ring and tournament

(2)... 50% in the money for a winning tournament player is actually too much.

(3)... a winning ring game player should make more than 1 BB/hour

and finally, if we assume the following:

. you make 1 BB an hour in ring game
. playing 0.5/1.0 ring requires the same skill as playing 10+1 tournament

then to average the same profit, you should make it in the money only 36 percent of the time

any thoughts? or is this just another of my useless posts?