[ansky451]

Wow, I'm genuinely disapointed in some of the responses in this thread.

Billyjex: N 82 never said this is the end all be all of all [censored] multi's. He specifically used this data to point out that a fantastic player can be losing over a relatively long period of time, due to the insane variance in MTTs. He is not saying "oooh look at me, I run a site that tells you who is good and who is bad." He acknowledged that its just stars.

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. Why somebody like you is embaressed... boggles my mind. Oh and lol @ thinking the 3 dollar tournaments will have any significant effect on any piece of data.

Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.

HEY EVERYBODY: I am down about 11,000 dollars over my last 150 stars MTTs. WOW I MUST BE HORRIBLE AT POKER. Oh wait, 150 MTTs before that, I was up 16,000. I MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT AT POKER FOR THAT STRETCH, RIGHT? No. I'm not ashamed at this... at all. I have a barely positive ROI on stars, I'm up about 3000 over like 450 tournaments. I'm on a terrible run. It happens. On partypoker and UB I definitely have a higher ROI over a smaller sample size, and I couldn't care less what a bunch of people want to interpret my data as. Before about 8 months ago, I wasn't very serious about MTTs and I screwed around in them and I lost a lot. I also played several WCOOPs, and all the 200s, and have 0 cashes in them. All this crap skews my data. There are multiple factors which can contribute to your ROI being not as positive as you would think it *should* be.