[Irieguy]

One of the most common generic types of posts on this forum is the "check-up" post where somebody posts their results (always good) from their last 100-1000 SNGs.

These posts suck.

We all want to get better at SNGs and we all want to know what is obtainable and sustainable in terms of earning potential. These posts don't help in either regard, and can be quite anti-productive in the latter regard.

You don't have to be a statistician to understand how selection bias deems the data contained in these post worthless.

So, the topic got me thinking about a little thought experiment:

Imagine if every registered user of 2+2 played a set of 500 SNGs.

Furthermore, for the sake of demonstration, imagine if every 2+2 poster was actually a LOSING poker player. Assume for a moment that we all had a "true" expected ROI of -9%

I asked our resident Monte Carlo simulator expert to plug-in a -9% ROI for every registered 2+2 user and have them play 500 SNGs.

How many "winners" would there be? 3703
Would somebody have a 20% or better ROI? Yep

So, even if we were all losing poker players playing 500 SNGs a month there could be thousands of posts by "winning" poker players each month talking about their last set of 500 SNGs.

If you want to know if you are any good, ask a long term winner to watch some of your HHs.

If you want to know what's sustainable, ask a long term winner what their ROI/ITM at a certain level has been. (Or search one of the 9384268268726127967234 posts on the topic.)

Irieguy