Party $200 SnG vs $100 SnG

[PokerPaul]

i am playing many STT's lately. All NL Holdem

my results for the $100 SnG's are really good.

my sample size is not huge yet so no concrete conclusions to be drawn yet.

Out of 40 so far i have down loaded to PT , i have finished in the money 53% of time. And won 6 of them outright.

On the Contrary, when i play the $200 ones, out of the 36 i played, i finished in the money only 25% of time, and have only won 1 single time.


Big losses at $200, are about equal to my profits at $100, both between $2200-$2500.

So obviously the smart thing is to stick to the $100 SnG's, and that is what i am doing this week, save the 1 i am playing right now (which brought on the idea for this post).

It makes perfect sense for the $200 games to be tougher than the $100 ones, i would expect that...but for it to be such a huge difference i do find surprising.

It does seem that i have had worse 'luck' at the $200's getting drawn out on way more often than one would expect, but i usually get in there with the best hand more often than other way around, so i 'think' im playing well, but maybe someone here could shed some light on it....

OOOOPS...just as im writing this i get sucked out on in $200 SNG in 5th KK vs KQ equal stacks, ..notch another $200 loss to the chart.

[ChrisCo]

Your sample size is incredibly small. No accurate conclusions can be made with only 40 tournaments.

Just track the results of some of the better 200 players like Daliman for example. He has been posting in his heads up thread about his results over thge last month. I believe if you look back at it you can see he posts a period with 50+ ROI then has a brutal downturn after that. And he kills the games. For someone of a lesser calibre (majority of this forum) the games are going to be even swingier. Your gonna have to grind it out for a while to gain accurate stats.

BTW if you didn't already know most of the information about variance and needing a much larger sample size then 40 tournaments you need to step down.

[raptor517]

you are going to get flamed about the sample size in this one. in a 40 game period, you could win outright 10 of them, and be perfectly under the normal realm of statsitcs. you could also win none of them and still be normal. therefore, you need to play about 10x as many games as you have played to have any relative idea of where you are at. 400 is still not even close to enough though. sngs can be super swingy. i have had a period of 200 where i have been up 200 dollars, and had another period where i have been up 8k. there is a lot of variance in sngs, be careful up there in the 200s, they pretty tough. i play the 100s almost exclusively now.

[PokerPaul]

i know sample size isnt large to draw conclusions, hence that very statement in the post.

Basically, all im asking is are the $200's that much tougher or only moderately so?

[skipperbob]

I really hope all the discussions about sample size & standard deviations are true; because then my current sample,(40 years = (-)$8Mil, may just be a bad run that isn't statistically significant