[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
surely you aren't going to argue that over a large sample size a player with greater skill is going to outperform, on a ROI basis, a player with lesser skill. that's just silly. and yes, yours truly does believe that 5k games does verge on large enough sample size to start to know things and yes, i'm sure you're willing to throw out facts about how you could just be learning the first 500 games, but yeah, people can learn to throw out the games from their early career, and things like that.

pick a point at which you think you started playing the way you're playing now, play identically for 5k games, and yes, your ROI is a measure of your skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a mod, I'm sure you read most threads. Even the repeat ones with the same questions, over and over. Who are the people who typically ask ROI questions? People who have played <1k games and haven't been reading/studying for very long. They will almost never play a meaningful sample size at the same skill level. I would certainly hope not.

I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation between ROI and skill level. I'm just saying that it's just not as strong as people make it out to be, and certainly not strong enough to be considered THE metric of skill.

And I'm not disputing that over a course of 5k games by 2 established players in the same buyin level, the stronger player will very likely have a higher ROI. But as a practical matter, this will rarely happen.