Pwning at a lower limit
 

So Zen and I were talking poker and talking smack, like we do all day everyday, and he comes out with the following statement:

"I bet I can make more money than you playing a level lower."

Oh no you din'nt.

So we hashed out the details. We chose the $33's vs. the $55's because those two are closest in value, and the chip stack discrepancy makes it a little interesting. I'm going to play 500 $55's and he's going to play 500 $33's this month. Whomever makes the most money wins the bet. I will not disclose the amount for which we are gambling, because if his wife (holding new baby) read this and found out how much cash he was pissing away on stupid prop bets, she'd flip out.

It'll probably take us a month.

There is no point to this whatsoever.

Irieguy

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Oh well, I'll be going up to the $30s in a day or two. I'll just have to beat him several times.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

what if she read this?

[ QUOTE ]
I will not disclose the amount for which we are gambling, because if his wife (holding new baby) read this and found out how much cash he was pissing away on stupid prop bets, she'd flip out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33? Regardless, I agree that the different chip counts make this interesting.

PS -- Can I get in on this and play at the 6s?

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Zen's going to be playing the $33s?

I guess it's time to move down to the 22s.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Sod that. Why be afraid of someone, gives you a chance to improve against the better players for a much smaller outlay than $215. I'm not shying away from him, I'll tell you that.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

awsome another regular in the 30+3's.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a percentage increase, the jump to the $55's is the smallest.

Irieguy

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

I was kidding.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Im confused, someone help me

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a percentage increase, the jump to the $55's is the smallest.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump from 22 to 33 = 50% increase.
Jump from 33 to 55 = 66.6% increase.

22 and 33 are closer.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Ok thats the help I needed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I suspect that he's talking about something else, or maybe slyly referring to the fact that $33s run shorter and thus are closer in terms of $ wagered per hour.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

tell Mark I said he's an idiot if he doesn't make you do this on a time bases, as in amount won in so many hours. The great equalizer in the bet is the fact that the 33's are shorter.

Steve

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a percentage increase, the jump to the $55's is the smallest.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump from 22 to 33 = 50% increase.
Jump from 33 to 55 = 66.6% increase.

22 and 33 are closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ought to be interesting [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a percentage increase, the jump to the $55's is the smallest.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump from 22 to 33 = 50% increase.
Jump from 33 to 55 = 66.6% increase.

22 and 33 are closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy christ, guys. The $22's did not occur to us. Sorry. It's the smallest jump of all the limits we've played.

Irieguy

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

In no particular order:

1) Nice avatar.
2) Zen made a bad bet (although it is widely believed that he is one of the best $33 players ever). My guess is that you will win and it has nothing to do with skill level. I would feel the same way about whomever was playing the $55s.
3) Stay off my tables.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
tell Mark I said he's an idiot if he doesn't make you do this on a time bases, as in amount won in so many hours. The great equalizer in the bet is the fact that the 33's are shorter.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when Zen plays. If we both play a set, me the $55's and him the $33's, I'll finish first.

Irieguy

PS- spare obvious jokes about how much quicker SNGs are if you never make the money.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Come on man, where can I get some of this action. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] In the future, I'd really love to see if this were possible for you in the 215's and Zen playing 109's. That would make it VERY interesting to see if it's possible to make more playing 109's versus the much tougher 215's now. You guys gonna be 4 or 8 tabling btw?

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are 33 and 55 closer than 22 and 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a percentage increase, the jump to the $55's is the smallest.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump from 22 to 33 = 50% increase.
Jump from 33 to 55 = 66.6% increase.

22 and 33 are closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy christ, guys. The $22's did not occur to us. Sorry. It's the smallest jump of all the limits we've played.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Best response ever! That's like a really rich guy trying to break a ten, but he doesn't have any fives. Finally, someone suggests he uses ones, and he goes "Wow, I didn't even think of those." [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Anyway, it was fun going back and forth. Keep us posted on the wager!

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Come on man, where can I get some of this action. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] In the future, I'd really love to see if this were possible for you in the 215's and Zen playing 109's. That would make it VERY interesting to see if it's possible to make more playing 109's versus the much tougher 215's now. You guys gonna be 4 or 8 tabling btw?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait 'till next week Usher...They're going to the L.V. Zoo to bet on which monkey can auto-eroticize theyownself to orgasm first....Then it will be a parlay to which group of monkeys can establish a "dynasty" that will win the Superbowl four times in the next three years [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Whatever $$ Zen pisses away on this prop bet he can easily make up tenfold the next time Skipperbob is in town ready to gamboooooool, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Clearly I need to explain some before you all think I'm more whacked-out than I really am...

Don't get me wrong, the foundation of this bet is smack. Other than flat-out winning a tough Orleans Open event 2 weeks ago, Irie's on a sick cooler right now, especially online (get in a SNG with him and just try to get all your chips to the middle against him with the worst of it and see how it works out...trust me on this one). I figured I'd make the bet to try to get him focused and running in the right direction again, and if that doesn't work, I can at least take advantage of the slide and make a little money off his ice-cold punk ass.

All that aside, however, this challenge is also in the name of science. I have had a theory for some time that the largest component of variance in the SNG comes from the amount of starting chips (assuming starting blinds are always the same), NOT from the caliber of opponents. In other words, the $55's are tougher than the $33's primarily (and perhaps almost exclusively) because you start with more chips. My theory is that the extra $200 in starting chips at the $55 level and above makes bad players "accidentally" play more correctly by tightening up more early in the SNG because they don't feel so short-stacked.

Clearly, I need my ROI to be 67% better than Irie's to win the bet...not an easy task, of course, but I really do think it's doable. I think 25% ROI wins the bet easily, and maybe as low as 20%. Irie is giving me odds on this too(+125), so I actually think the wager is fair and I might even be getting slightly the best of it. I'll be 8-tabling from "ZentheZaster," "ZentheMaster," and/or "ZenDiZaster" so feel free to join me or avoid me as you see fit.

--Z

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be 8-tabling from ...
--Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Why 8-table? Was there a time limit set to finish the 500 SNG's - or are you just proving your badassness? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll be 8-tabling from ...
--Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Why 8-table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's there, my brother...because it's there.


Other acceptable answers are:

Because I can (as if the $33's aren't boring enough).

Because I don't want to spend any more than one month on this project.

Because Irie will also be 8-tabling the $55's during the bet so we eliminate a variable (number of tables played at a time) when analyzing the results.

--Z

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Yeah, but only one of you has the apparent avility to chat while playing....[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

My $$ would be on *that* horse [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Ship it to bank!

Yugoslav

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]


...All that aside, however, this challenge is also in the name of science.
--Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is a scientific experiment. Also in the name of [2+2]science, we will only post our results if we both go on a sick heater.

If I run better at the $109's or $215's, I will post those results instead. If I lose at SNGs all month, I will post my live results in the Bellagio dailies. If I lose everything, i'll just title something "variance is a bitch," and post my results next month instead.

At the end of the year, Zen and I will co-author a post entitiled "glimpse into the results of SNG world champions" where we post our best 6 months each and say "this is pretty much how we do most of the time." Maybe we'll start a website.

Then 2,000 n0obs and 20 low limit SNG pros will hang themselves because they can't match the results of two Jackoffs on the SNG forum.

Then the experiment will be over.

Irieguy

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is a scientific experiment. Also in the name of [2+2]science, we will only post our results if we both go on a sick heater.


[/ QUOTE ]

Will you at least say who wins without numbers? Otherwise wtf is the point of this post?

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


...All that aside, however, this challenge is also in the name of science.
--Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is a scientific experiment. Also in the name of [2+2]science, we will only post our results if we both go on a sick heater.

If I run better at the $109's or $215's, I will post those results instead. If I lose at SNGs all month, I will post my live results in the Bellagio dailies. If I lose everything, i'll just title something "variance is a bitch," and post my results next month instead.

At the end of the year, Zen and I will co-author a post entitiled "glimpse into the results of SNG world champions" where we post our best 6 months each and say "this is pretty much how we do most of the time." Maybe we'll start a website.

Then 2,000 n0obs and 20 low limit SNG pros will hang themselves because they can't match the results of two Jackoffs on the SNG forum.

Then the experiment will be over.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important post and those who need it the most won't get it.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is a scientific experiment. Also in the name of [2+2]science, we will only post our results if we both go on a sick heater.


[/ QUOTE ]

Will you at least say who wins without numbers? Otherwise wtf is the point of this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmm... we will actually post the exact results regardless of the outcome.

My post explains this by suggesting that the majority of results posts on this forum are selectively biased toward the favorable end of the variance spectrum. By pointing this out and then facetiously stating that we will do the same, I was attempting to use not-so-subtle irony as a way of stating "we will post our results" while adding some social commentary at the same time.

But as Zen said, i'm running cold right now... apparently it applies to my writing, too.

Irieguy

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
But as Zen said, i'm running cold right now... apparently it applies to my writing, too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Being on a cooler myself (just lost 2 preflop 70/30s and 1 flop 3 outer in less than 15 hands) turned my subtlety detector off. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]

But as Zen said, i'm running cold right now... apparently it applies to my writing, too.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Your writing was just fine. It may not have been world champion writing, but it was fine.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


...All that aside, however, this challenge is also in the name of science.
--Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is a scientific experiment. Also in the name of [2+2]science, we will only post our results if we both go on a sick heater.

If I run better at the $109's or $215's, I will post those results instead. If I lose at SNGs all month, I will post my live results in the Bellagio dailies. If I lose everything, i'll just title something "variance is a bitch," and post my results next month instead.

At the end of the year, Zen and I will co-author a post entitiled "glimpse into the results of SNG world champions" where we post our best 6 months each and say "this is pretty much how we do most of the time." Maybe we'll start a website.

Then 2,000 n0obs and 20 low limit SNG pros will hang themselves because they can't match the results of two Jackoffs on the SNG forum.

Then the experiment will be over.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important post and those who need it the most won't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think those that "need" this post the most aren't the one's that are hanging themselves, and they likely WILL get it, just not care.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

I guess the bet would be an amount that would cover the lost EV of moving down to the $55s??

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

I would estimate that Irie is about a 2:1 favorite here over a huge number of SNGs. If he hits a 20% ROI then Zen has to have a 33.3% ROI. I think this is too much to overcome. Even over 500 I would wager on Irie.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would estimate that Irie is about a 2:1 favorite here over a huge number of SNGs. If he hits a 20% ROI then Zen has to have a 33.3% ROI. I think this is too much to overcome. Even over 500 I would wager on Irie.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by that? assuming you don't have any bankroll considerations why would the bet being for 500 or for 2000 SNGs change which side you would bet on?

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

$/SnG at the 33s is a lot closer to the $/SnG at the 55s then most members of this forum know...Variance will be the only factor imo.

Table/seat selection could put Irie over the top, but 8tabling nulifies a lot of this.

Just my opinions. They never really matter, but I am always right in my mind.


edit: unless rakeback counts then Irie kills this. Otherwise the sample size makes this anyones game imo.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

"$/SnG at the 33s is a lot closer to the $/SnG at the 55s then most members of this forum know...Variance will be the only factor imo."

Then you say:

unless rakeback counts then Irie kills this.

With rakeback irie kills this ($55s pay better than $33s). No rakeback hurts irie...

So you're saying the $55s basically aren't worthwhile apart from adjusting to the larger number of chips in play, and maybe the slightly better competition?? From my limited experience at the $55s I think the $/hr increase is similiar to the $22s-$33s. Definately worthwhile if you can cope with greater variance.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

A step up is almost always worth it if you have the proper bankroll AND the experience to deal with the larger swings at the higher level. All of this provided you are a winning player at the new level... An adjustment period is needed for most players. Some players may find that they play much much better at the 55s then the 33s based on style of play.

rakeback just sweetens the deal A LOT.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Exactly what I think.

"rakeback just sweetens the deal A LOT."

Without rakeback I'd need to do alot of work on my game to make the jump to the $55s and $109s worthwhile.

Re: Pwning at a lower limit
 

Can I be on your website? I only need to use 33 days.