$20 SnG's

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
\I think this is a combination of not knowing how to exploit very loose and reckless players, and also playing more wildly myself because of a smaller buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

By playing loose and wild, I would read that you lay worse at the lower limits. Then it makes a lot of sense that you are not getting the same return. Why don't you play your A game at the lower buy ins? If you can't, that is a mental problem you have not an argument that the games are harder.

And again if your sample size is only a couple hundred games, your results are not that meaningfull. If that isn't clear, change your results by moving a couple of first to 4ths or vice versa and see how much your results change.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, here's the most important point: As long as the $100 game is going, there will be some players playing at the $20 level that cannot win at the $10 level.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please clarify this last statement. I cannot see that this would be a conclusion of the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as a bigger game exists, there will be players at the next lowest game who are working their way up because they are lucky losers, and players who are falling down from the big game because they are just realizing that they are losers.

These players belong in the $10 pool, but they've lost their way. Since the $10 pool is so much larger than the bigger pools, these players will often outnumber the players who are playing the $20 game because that is their appropriate skill level.

The equilibrium model I explained is an inductive reasoning model that began with one player wagering as much as possible against a better player because he didn't know any better. Once the model expands to a large number of players, it can be deduced that there will be a large number of players at the second level who don't belong there. They will want to take their shot at the big game, and need to win some money to do so.

Human behavior on a large scale can be predicted remarkably well with mathematic models. That's what economics does: it applies predictive models to human decision making. Our gut reaction is that it shouldn't work. "No stupid formula can tell ME what I'M going to decide!" Well, it turns out that Abraham Maslow and BF Skinner were smart MoFos, and it's really simple to predict how people will behave.

Irieguy

[HoldingFolding]

I would say the most obvious reason you have a better ROI at the 20s than the 10s is that you are not the same player. Example; you play too LAGgy at the 10s, but still have an ROI good enough to aloow you to move up. The increase in stake makes you more conservative and you tighten up, this, until you become comfortable at that level, improves your results.

[rickr]

Irie,
Do the extra chips that start out at the $50 offset your numbers at all? I've always heard people complain that the small starting stacks and fast blinds of party turn it into a luckfest. Wondering if the larger chipstack would remove some of that luck factor, thereby making $50's closer to $30's. Did I make since? Let's say that all tourneys have a 20% luck factor, and the extra chips in $50's offset the luck factor by 10%. Would the $50's and $30's not then be the same? Or is it given that everyone starts with the same chips, once churned, the cream still rises to the top? If that's the case, wouldn't people who complain about party's blind structure and such be totally off base?

Thanks,
Rick

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
The only viable arguement that you didnt create nor even comparable is that the $50 S+G's may be easier than the $30's.

There are a couple of reasons for this if you want to try and formulate that arguement.

Irie do you want to comment on that?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sure. The $55's are harder than the $33's.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Irie,
Do the extra chips that start out at the $50 offset your numbers at all? I've always heard people complain that the small starting stacks and fast blinds of party turn it into a luckfest. Wondering if the larger chipstack would remove some of that luck factor, thereby making $50's closer to $30's. Did I make since? Let's say that all tourneys have a 20% luck factor, and the extra chips in $50's offset the luck factor by 10%. Would the $50's and $30's not then be the same? Or is it given that everyone starts with the same chips, once churned, the cream still rises to the top? If that's the case, wouldn't people who complain about party's blind structure and such be totally off base?


[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point but apparently Dr Know It All provides no reasoning but expects us to take his wiseass comments and leave it at that.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

That was my point but apparently Dr Know It All provides no reasoning but expects us to take his wiseass comments and leave it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations.

This type of reply makes me less than eager to do something like that again.

Irieguy

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say the most obvious reason you have a better ROI at the 20s than the 10s is that you are not the same player. Example; you play too LAGgy at the 10s, but still have an ROI good enough to aloow you to move up. The increase in stake makes you more conservative and you tighten up, this, until you become comfortable at that level, improves your results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Many players play very loose at the lower levels, but once they move up they tighten up and play more conservatively.

So, if they were too loose at $5 they might be playing better poker at $10 or $20 without even realizing it.

But you don't have to move up in order to play more correctly. Purposely seeking out games with better competition is not a way to grow your bankroll. The better solution would be to tighten up at the lower games until you beat them consistently, then move up. This will give you more skills that can be used against different types of opponents at the higher levels.

There will never be an easier game to beat in the long run than the one with the worst players. There's simply no way to argue that point.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations.

This type of reply makes me less than eager to do something like that again.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]


Irie, although this very same issue was discussed to death several times before, with some extra-stubborn posters (remember linus?), you somehow managed to put together some really interesting posts in this thread, shedding new light on the subject of SNGs economy, and I enjoyed reading them very much.

I know exactly how it feels when you get all sort of nasty (and very stupid) replies after putting time and effort in a thread. It feels like you don't want to post anymore. It amazes me how people can't simpy appriciate the fact that a MUCH more expirienced player than them is actually giving them FREE advice. Unbelievable in any context. The problem is not that they are arguing with you, of course, arguments are good, but that they simply think you're just full of xxxx or something, and want you to stop telling them they're wrong. They can't accept it, because they are very very good players, of course (they just have this minor problem of not being able to crush low buy in SNGs with terrible players in them... but nobody's perfect [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Constantly dismissing sound advice on this forums, without any half-reasonable argument, is one funny form of stupidity, IMO. It is basically giving up on free money, that's how I see it.

But again, not really surprising if you consider the huge amount of misunderstandings in this game, which you see every day at the tables too. The fact that it's pretty common here on 2+2, only tells you what a long way one has to go before really getting good in this game.


Great posts, anyway.

[kspade]

Quote:
>>Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations. <<

And I for one appreciated it, thank you!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[floppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Human behavior on a large scale can be predicted remarkably well with mathematic models. That's what economics does: it applies predictive models to human decision making. Our gut reaction is that it shouldn't work. "No stupid formula can tell ME what I'M going to decide!" Well, it turns out that Abraham Maslow and BF Skinner were smart MoFos, and it's really simple to predict how people will behave.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This always reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes:

A person is smart, people are stupid
- J, Men In Black

I have a few questions about your theoretical model, Irie:

- You have:
Player C beats Player B
Player B beats Player A

So Player C, after watching player B play player A, will want to play player A, but how does this establish that Player C beats player A?

Or are you saying that, per Occam's Razor, the simplest assumption is that there is a transitive property for poker players, and that a poker room where this transitive property applies accurately represents real poker rooms on the Internet?