Re: Limit SNGs
[ QUOTE ]
If there is bad (sub-optimal) play, then it's trivial to show how the game is beatable. One just has to find the right adjustments to take full advantage. Unfortunately, I doubt it's really worth anyone's time to really devote a significant amount of time to figuring out what these adjustments are...
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this statement is true. Just because there's suboptimal play doesn't mean the game is beatable. The reason for this, of course, is that even though you might have an edge, the edge you get might not be enough to compensate for the entry fees you have to pay. For instance, if you put a bunch of world class pros at a $5/10 table, my guess is that none of them would be able to show a profit because I doubt any of them would be able to gain more than a 5% advantage over the competition. I'm not saying that it is the case with limit SNGs, but it's something to consider.
I also mentioned that a higher standard deviation in limit would lead to a lower overall winrate due to the nature of SNGs and the fact that this would more or less flatten your results. However, after reading this post and contemplating this idea further, I'm not sure this is the case. It might be true that your placement is more or less a function of the percentage edge you have on the competition and be completely (or mostly) independent of SD. You will have to win more at showdown, which could decrease the percentage of times you win, but you are also getting 3:1 or 4:1 on a lot of these bets, which could lead to a higher ITM.
I'm not sure how to go about proving this in either direction, and I'm not sure which one is correct. Does anybody have any ideas on this? Might be a good question for the Probability forum...
|