New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Apologies if this has already been posted on, but it looks like party is starting to offer an even faster sng format. Blinds go up every 5 minutes. Right now I think they're only offering 5+1s. I'm playing one right now and it's crazy. People are waiting as long as possible so we can only get about 3 hands/ 5 minutes.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Cool, I didn't notice this. Well, it appears as though only 5+1 NL and 10+1 Holdem are being offered. That sucks.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Yeah, I assume they'll start offering high buy-ins. The one I'm playing is kind of interesting. More hands with less players, but the first three rounds are over in about 10 hands.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Unless people are stalling it doesn't seem like the levels would be too much faster than regular SnGs. The first two or three levels would probably be faster, but the average SnG length would be about the same. At least it's not like the speed MTTs that party sometimes has.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Yeah it looks cool, but I was just thinking wouldn't you be paying more fees? The tourneys are real fast so this means theres less hands to apply your advantage.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless people are stalling it doesn't seem like the levels would be too much faster than regular SnGs. The first two or three levels would probably be faster, but the average SnG length would be about the same. At least it's not like the speed MTTs that party sometimes has.

[/ QUOTE ]

A normal Party SNG is 10 hands per level, do you honestly expect 10 hands per 5 minutes with more than 4 players left?

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Seems like a luckfest. Low buy in 800 chips with blinds increasing this fast. eh.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

My average SnG lasts around 45 minutes and ends in level 8 or 9, so I'm assuming the total time per SnG won't be much different. Unlike on pokerstars where the speed SnGs are at least 2x faster than normal ones.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
My average SnG lasts around 45 minutes and ends in level 8 or 9, so I'm assuming the total time per SnG won't be much different. Unlike on pokerstars where the speed SnGs are at least 2x faster than normal ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

my impression as well, except the ones I played lasted an average of 30 minutes. seems as if everyone gets eliminated early quickly, and then suddenly the bubble lasts 10 minutes.

I think that these should end up being about 1.5x quicker than normal sngs. I hope the higher buy-in ones come out soon so that people can find out the profitability of these compared to regular sngs.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

The average length is about the same. The early rounds go quicker and the late rounds take longer. This is to our advantage because we have such a bigger edge late with all of our ICM knowledge.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
The average length is about the same. The early rounds go quicker and the late rounds take longer. This is to our advantage because we have such a bigger edge late with all of our ICM knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average length is about the same. The early rounds go quicker and the late rounds take longer. This is to our advantage because we have such a bigger edge late with all of our ICM knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isn't it kind of true?

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

It is true but ROI will still be lower. It's whether the $/hr would make up for it. Expect much increase in variance however.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is true but ROI will still be lower. It's whether the $/hr would make up for it. Expect much increase in variance however.

[/ QUOTE ]

why will ROI be lower? why will variance be increased a lot?

I feel under-edumacated [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Well it's quite obvious really, even though we don't play much in the first few levels we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really), by outplaying people post flop and generally picking up pots. In a speed tournament your chances for doing this will be lessened because you'll see less hands in the first few levels, therefore these chips won't be as easily accessible, and therefore you'll be going into the pushbot mode with overall fewer chips than the normal SNGs. This of course will add to variance and lower ROI by design.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well it's quite obvious really, even though we don't play much in the first few levels we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really), by outplaying people post flop and generally picking up pots. In a speed tournament your chances for doing this will be lessened because you'll see less hands in the first few levels, therefore these chips won't be as easily accessible, and therefore you'll be going into the pushbot mode with overall fewer chips than the normal SNGs. This of course will add to variance and lower ROI by design.

[/ QUOTE ]

But won't we more than make up for this by picking up chips 4 and 5 handed by pushing as dictated by ICM? In other words, we accumulate MORE chips than our non-push-happy opponents, and since we get to the bubble/ 5-handed play quicker (which lasts longer), we have even more time to make correct pushes and get lots of chips.

Where's the hole in my logic (because there has to be one...)

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Well maybe but I really don't think so. The early stages are more important than you think for accumulating chips. Still I guess only time will tell.

Of course the other (major IMO) factor is you will have less reads on players, and therefore less idea what they will call pushes with, especially on the bubble. This will definitely hurt your equity as well.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well it's quite obvious really, even though we don't play much in the first few levels we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really), by outplaying people post flop and generally picking up pots. In a speed tournament your chances for doing this will be lessened because you'll see less hands in the first few levels, therefore these chips won't be as easily accessible, and therefore you'll be going into the pushbot mode with overall fewer chips than the normal SNGs. This of course will add to variance and lower ROI by design.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. The only thing that significantly affects variance in a STT is payout structure. The ROI part is true though, it should drop.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

People on 2+2 use variance as short of a shorthand for "how large will bankroll swings be for a given percentile winner?". Lower ROI->biggger downswings->more "variance". And this structure would appear to cause lower ROI.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Yeah that's what I meant, I mean I know the mathematical meaning of variance of course.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it's quite obvious really, even though we don't play much in the first few levels we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really), by outplaying people post flop and generally picking up pots. In a speed tournament your chances for doing this will be lessened because you'll see less hands in the first few levels, therefore these chips won't be as easily accessible, and therefore you'll be going into the pushbot mode with overall fewer chips than the normal SNGs. This of course will add to variance and lower ROI by design.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. The only thing that significantly affects variance in a STT is payout structure. The ROI part is true though, it should drop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lower ROI means higher variance, no?

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Well what he really means is the 'variance' from a single tournament will be the same - you still only have 4 possible results - 5xbuyin, 3xbuyin, 2xbuyin or nothing at all. So he is right in that sense. But in terms of distribution of results, there will be an effect. That is what we really mean when we talk of "variance" a lot of the time.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
The early stages are more important than you think for accumulating chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really),

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have supporting evidence for this rather than anecdotal evidence or opinions that could easilly be clouded by confirmation bias ?

Take a look at your PT database, is this true ? Is it significant ? How many chips do we accumulate by level four ? If it is obvious then how come the common wisdom that our main advantage is on the bubble is so widely accepted ?

We have so much data in our PT databases we should use it to answer these questions.

Take a look at your PT. Look at the beginning of level 4. How many chips do you have on avarage ?

--
tjh

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at your PT. Look at the beginning of level 4. How many chips do you have on avarage ?

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you get this information from PT?

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at your PT. Look at the beginning of level 4. How many chips do you have on avarage ?

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you get this information from PT?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to tournament statistics,
First tab displays summaries.
Second tab displays toruney notes.
Click on the second tab.

Tournament detail shows winner on the right side. When you highlight a tournament the box below shows all the hands for that tourney.

I highlight tournies that I won and then look at the lower box "Games played during selected tourney" .

I scroll down in "games played during selected toruney" to the first hand of level four. My number of tournies in PT is small but I found that at the beginning of level four in tournies that I won I was below average in chip count.

Here is a table to show what the average chip count for number of players is
10 = 800
9 = 889
8 = 1000
7 = 1142
6 = 1333

Out of my sample of 11 wins

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

I show myself as below average 8 times and above average 3 times. THis is at the beginning of level 4, the first hand of level 4.

So although a larger sample is more significant this does show that NO I DO NOT ACCUMULATE CHIPS EARLY.

Would be nice if I did but I still got ITM in these tournies.

--
tjh

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
The early stages are more important than you think for accumulating chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
we still accumulate chips there overall (which is obvious really),

[/ QUOTE ]

My quick analysis of my tiny tiny sample of the 22's and showing that I do not accumulate chips early on in a tourney gives me the confidence to make this challenge. To the poster that stated that we accumulate chips early on please do a random sample of your PT SNG's that you won.

Look at 10 tournies that you won use some random selection method. Look at the first hand of level 4. Post number of below average and number of above average.

I would bet that you are below average overall.

Of course you may have meant that "accumulate chips" meant to have more than the 800 starting chips and not more than average. In that case it is most likely true that we "accumulate chips" early on.
--
tjh

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

Standard deviation, which is what you guys mean when you say variance, is sqrt(%1(W1-a)^2+%2(W2-a)+%3(W3-a)+%4(BI-a)), where %1 is chance to come in 1st, W1 is money earned for first, a is expected win, %4 is odds of losing, and BI is the buy-in. So, it's certainly affected by your ROI and your place distrubution, not just the payout structure, and how it changes relative to those depends on what they are specifically. For a player with a 20% ROI or so, variance increases as ROI goes down because the terms (W1-a)^2, (W2-a)^2, and (W3-a)^2 increase much faster than the terms that decrease.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

I was hoping for a quick PT-will-produce-it-for-me way to find the answer. I've got a relatively modest 113 wins, but that's still a lot more work than I'd want to do mostly by hand.

[ QUOTE ]
So although a larger sample is more significant this does show that NO I DO NOT ACCUMULATE CHIPS EARLY.

Would be nice if I did but I still got ITM in these tournies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rather than look from 1st place finishes backwards, I think it would be good to look at all tournaments at the end of level four and see if you're more or less likely to finish ITM when you have an above average chip stack. See what the correlation is, etc.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Standard deviation, which is what you guys mean when you say variance, is sqrt(%1(W1-a)^2+%2(W2-a)+%3(W3-a)+%4(BI-a)), where %1 is chance to come in 1st, W1 is money earned for first, a is expected win, %4 is odds of losing, and BI is the buy-in. So, it's certainly affected by your ROI and your place distrubution, not just the payout structure, and how it changes relative to those depends on what they are specifically. For a player with a 20% ROI or so, variance increases as ROI goes down because the terms (W1-a)^2, (W2-a)^2, and (W3-a)^2 increase much faster than the terms that decrease.

[/ QUOTE ]

The last part of this statement isn't true. If you take a player who never finishes ITM or a player who always gets first, they will both have a variance of 0.

For people who fall in the middle (everyone), your variance is just a 2nd degree polynomial. For people in what would be a normal range of finishes, they will actually increase variance with a higher ROI because the higher percentages of firsts tend to create bigger swings.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a table to show what the average chip count for number of players is
10 = 800
9 = 889
8 = 1000
7 = 1142
6 = 1333

Out of my sample of 11 wins

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

I show myself as below average 8 times and above average 3 times. THis is at the beginning of level 4, the first hand of level 4.

So although a larger sample is more significant this does show that NO I DO NOT ACCUMULATE CHIPS EARLY.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you play a very tight strategy at the low buyins, you should still be accumulating chips in the early levels. You will generally be slightly below average, but in the times that you aren't, you will frequently be way above average. So your average chip stack will still be above average, regardless of the number of times you fall on either side of the line.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look at 10 tournies that you won use some random selection method. Look at the first hand of level 4. Post number of below average and number of above average.

I would bet that you are below average overall.

[/ QUOTE ]
Random 10: above average at start of level IV 4/10; above average at start of level V 6/10. In both cases, average chips held at beginning of level was above average chip count: 1.24 x average stack at start of level IV and 1.33 x average stack at start of level V.

Not that any 10 game sample is going to prove anything.

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at 10 tournies that you won use some random selection method. Look at the first hand of level 4. Post number of below average and number of above average.

I would bet that you are below average overall.

[/ QUOTE ]
Random 10: above average at start of level IV 4/10; above average at start of level V 6/10. In both cases, average chips held at beginning of level was above average chip count: 1.24 x average stack at start of level IV and 1.33 x average stack at start of level V.

Not that any 10 game sample is going to prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I am gald that I did not bet any cash on my part

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

I figured a random sample would encourage you to take a look. Thanks.

I could perhaps improve my game by playing some more hands early then.

--
tjh

Re: New party \"Speed\" sngs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could perhaps improve my game by playing some more hands early then.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the only way to get chips early on. My VP$IP is around 13% in levels 1-3. Sometimes it's not a matter of winning more chips but rather losing fewer. (Not that my example is one to follow.)