Are you sure about ROI

[rwanger]

I've read some of the threads about ROI...and I found it hard to believe that the best player at Party $215's is only making $36 profit per tourney. What do you think is a reasonable Finished in Money %? I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%. So shouldn't the best players be able to get there?

I moved up to $109's this week...and in 32 tournies, had an ROI of 60%. In money 54%, with just about even distributuion between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

I know 32 is not a large sample...but I really don't feel like I have been getting exceptionally good cards, or hitting lucky hands. Just playing extremely well. Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?

I looked back to my $55's, and through 100 tournies had an ROI of 20%. My in money was 43%, BUT my 1st:2nd:3rd was 12:15:18.....stacked in favor of thirds. Anyway, I AM playing much better now.

Anyone else at the $50/100/200s want to share stats?
(even if you say this is just a huge streak, I will try not to believe you, I want to think I will keep running this well)

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?


[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be "bizarre" but it is a (VERY!) short-term streak, whether it feels like one or not.

eastbay

[Jurollo]

come back in 2K tournies, and you'll still have a small sample size... I was thought after an amazing run of a 500% ROI in a sample of 1 tourney I was killing the SNGs, come to find out my real ROI was somewhere near 22%... oh well, the sample size fairy struck again!
~Justin

[rwanger]

Ha ha. Nice example. I'm not saying that 60% is sustainable (but what do I know), I just find it hard to believe that a percentage in the low 20's is the best anyone can do. What was your in money %?

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read some of the threads about ROI...and I found it hard to believe that the best player at Party $215's is only making $36 profit per tourney. What do you think is a reasonable Finished in Money %? I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%. So shouldn't the best players be able to get there?

I moved up to $109's this week...and in 32 tournies, had an ROI of 60%. In money 54%, with just about even distributuion between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

I know 32 is not a large sample...but I really don't feel like I have been getting exceptionally good cards, or hitting lucky hands. Just playing extremely well. Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Bizarre" winning streak? No, SNGs have a lot of variance and you'll have a number of good streaks over the short-run. Just like when you get bitch-slapped over a stretch in the near future, it won't be bizarre.

Also, the mind is very good at playing tricks in regards to running good/bad with cards. When running good, you're winning coin flips and all your hands are holding up, seems normal. When you get a few bad beats, those tend to stick in the noggin for a much longer time.

If you still believe that a 50% ITM is sustainable in the 215s...I have a bridge I'd like to sell you for a great price....

[Grivan]

Nope, your right, you obvioiusly are the best SNG player on these boards, and you should be moving up to the 200s ASAP. You are killing the 100s the 200s can't be that much harder.

[rwanger]

Thanks for more sarcasm. I am not the best. Brilliant Observation.

Now someone please tell me why placing in the money 50% of the time is not reasonable? Maybe it's just a figure of speech, but Cloutier makes some claims in his Champsionship No-Limit book that he wins satellites around 1/3 to 1/4 of the time. Is he exxagerating or what?

[viennagreen]

are they 5 person satellites?

[The once and future king]

The sarcasm comes form there beeing one post like this every month. It gets tedious as the process is allways the same.

1. New Poster claims ITM of X with tiny sample size.
2. Vets say ITM isnt sustainable in the long term.
3. New poster dosnt believe them.
4. Boring.

EVERY SNG player that has 1000k+ SNG's will tell you that 50% ITM isnt sustainable. We all know this to be true. When you have played more so will you.

You have played 32 SNGs. It is possible for even the best SNG player to go 10 SNG's without even placing. This dosnt happen very often but it does happen. I have just played 132 tournies and have an ITM of 51%, yet I know this isnt sustaniable because I know that when the cards turn super cold there is nothing you can do about it and winning and or placing will become virtualy impossible.

You cant know about variance untill you have experienced it and to experience it you have to play enough for it to occur. You havnt played enough yet end of story.

[LeVoodoo]

I hate to go slightly off topic, but this seems like such a beloved topic that i sure as heck don't want to start another thread on it. I ask these questions as religious SNG player, I don't succeed well at ring games and only play the odd multi.

This magic number of ~22% ROI, does it take into account the quality of competition? Surely it's easier to win at a 5 or 10 buck table as opposed to a 100 table. Wouldn't this perhaps lead to a higher percentage?

Second and lastly, is playing only SNG tables profitable long term? I'm not talking about making a living, but right now i'm the type of player that's quite happy to be up ~35 bucks a day for a few hours of poker, my average over the month of january. (And yes, in case you're wondering, that's with a ~40% win ratio, quite possibly unsustainable).

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]