Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
nice post. especially nicec because i like to be reminded how crazy mtt's are, while i'm at the very end of a downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Could you calculate the standard deviation of his winnings/tournamennt please? You acknowledged that the sample size was small, but it's really really important to note just how small the sample size is.

Also, 200% ROI's really good.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is the same as my other point, that n 82 was not critisizing Zee's results, nor was he trying to put down zee in anyway. For him to defend himself implies that somehow he was being attacked, which he wasn't.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
ALL statisical data analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's really really really wrong.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, you mean in earth years?

there are actually 3 in 2005.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Indeed, that 100 rebuy counts too.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

N,

I think this is an excellent post and analysis and pretty succinctly illustrates the insanely high variance that exists in tourney poker. Another way of looking at it is that here's this thing where you have an expectation of say $200-400 a shot, yet in one instance you might get lucky and win $100k+. The long run in tourneys is much longer than even many very experienced top tourney players would like to think.