Tracking results: ROI vs $/100 hands

[Paul2432]

ROI seems to be the most popular method for tracking results in the 1-table tournaments. Does anyone here also keep track of money won per 100 hands?

I think $/100 hands is really what we are all after. What I am driving at is that two players with the same ROI could have different $/100 hands if one of them busted out much faster when he did not make the money. The fast busting player would make more money because he could play more tournaments (assuming equal playing time for both).

Anyway I play the $100+9 STTs at Party. My results are probably not significant since I only started keeping track for the last 29 tournaments but here they are:

ROI=42%
$/100 hands=76

I would be curious to see the results of others. Does anyone here adopt a go for broke strategy because it will allow you to play more tournaments?

Thanks,
Paul

[Moonsugar]

$$/hour is key. I will take a chance to go broke with AK (for instance early in a 30 or 50 tourney at Party (but not at Stars) because they are so easily replacable and if I get chips early I think I have a great shot at making the money (more than my chip equity).

[alekhine8]

Not to be rude (really!) but I dont understand everyone's fascination with ROI. Assuming I had the proper bankroll, Id much rather have a 10% ROI on the $200s than a 50% ROI on the $10s.

Focus on a per hour rate. Your most valuable resource when it comes to online poker is your time! Once you do some calculations (based on win rate and time per SNG), you can compare your hourly rate at SNGs to ring games to MTTs and play whats the most profitable for you, while also considering variance.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be rude (really!) but I dont understand everyone's fascination with ROI. Assuming I had the proper bankroll, Id much rather have a 10% ROI on the $200s than a 50% ROI on the $10s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not to be rude, but... duh. Given those exact figures.

However, it's not quite that simple, because you rarely know your ROI even close to exactly. More likely you know it to within something like +/- 10%. In which case your 10% at $200 SnG could easily be zero or worse. In that case, I'll take the 50% at $10.

[ QUOTE ]

Focus on a per hour rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given an average tournament length, it's a trivial conversion.

ROI is a normalized per-tournament success rate. It's an important figure, IMO, but not the only one.

eastbay

[Bozeman]

The change in average length of tourney for strategies that do not massively negatively affect your $/tourney (or ROI, at a given level) will be small. While theoretically we should be concerned about $ (and SD) /time, and time is ~= hands, practically time ~= # of tourneys, and # of tourneys is easier to track. My guess is that the biggest change between the ROI optimizing and the $/hr. optimizing strategies will be about 2-5% in the necessary edge you would need to call an early allin at most. You want to simulate this for me, Eastbay?

As for concern with ROI, it is nice because it is a unitless, level independent measure. I think it's greatest value is determining whether you ought to move up or continue learning at this level. Just moving up based on BR can cause some significant -EV's.

Craig

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
The change in average length of tourney for strategies that do not massively negatively affect your $/tourney (or ROI, at a given level) will be small. While theoretically we should be concerned about $ (and SD) /time, and time is ~= hands, practically time ~= # of tourneys, and # of tourneys is easier to track. My guess is that the biggest change between the ROI optimizing and the $/hr. optimizing strategies will be about 2-5% in the necessary edge you would need to call an early allin at most. You want to simulate this for me, Eastbay?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. Smartass.

I still have to get around to running out the push/call strategies I outlined last week.

eastbay