Backing Deal REDUX and update

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
My BR won't support the buy-ins for the big MTT's, so I have taken on backers in an attempt to enter the big MTT's while at the same time still playing ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also said you expect them to be -EV, if someone else is taking all the risk they should take the vast majority of the rewards too.

If someone pays you to enter a $600 tourney, and you win Z, then out of Z-600 they should get most. Not that I'd back you even at that, but I'd fully expect to take 75-90% of the profits if I take all the risk on a high risk venture.

[semipro]

I agree that if the backers were backing me for just the MTT's alone, then I would agree with the multiple comments that they are taking the risk in a risky venture and should therefore be rewarded for such risk, and I would agree. If it was just the MTT's alone.

I think that the proper thing to do from this point forth is that my backers will back 100% of my BR, and they will continue to collect 50% of all winnings, including the ring games. That this partnership should last through a period of MTT's, and after the MTT's are done, then the partnership should be dissolved, and I will go on my merry way to ring games w/my increased BR. Thank you all for your constructive comments.

Now, about the -EV for MTT's.

Ok, let's assume that I am about a 10% + above average player, and that I decide to enter an MTT for a buy-in of $500, with 2000 ppl entered, w/the top 150 in the money, and that 150th pays out exactly twice the buy-in. I would think that my expected place of finish would be about 800th if all 2000 ppl entered were the average distribution of players. And my standard deviation for a second attempt would be 780th - 820th, and for a third 760th - 840th, and so on for each successive attempt. If I have to place 32 std deviations above my average in order to cash, then this would be a statistical outlier. I can only assume at this level that this would be -EV. I am not a statistician, so if this logic is flawed, please forgive.

Now, let's say that I am 30% above average, and same situation as above, then my expected place of finish would be 400th. Again, this would leave me about 8 std deviations away from cashing. Much better than the first situation but still -EV.

Finally, if I was 40% + average, then my expected finish would be 200th, and now I am less than one std deviation away from cashing out, and i would consider this situation a +EV.

I am not so cocky or assuming as to think that I am amongst the top 10% of poker players world-wide. But I think that playing MTT's will be a great learning experience, and an outside chance at placing.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]


Well, even if he can only beat it for 2BB/100 it will take him 10 days to pass the limit and head on.

And do you really think the skill difference between 5/10 and 15/30 is so small that a 1BB improvement at one third the stakes isn't possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not so much an issue of skill difference as it is an issue of rake. i don't remember the exact numbers, but at 5/10 you can expect to pay over 2BB/100 in rake, while at 15/30 its < 1BB/100. to make 1BB/100 more at 5/10, you'd have to be beating your opponents for about 3BB/100 more than at 15/30. that's huge.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, let's assume that I am about a 10% + above average player, and that I decide to enter an MTT for a buy-in of $500, with 2000 ppl entered, w/the top 150 in the money, and that 150th pays out exactly twice the buy-in. I would think that my expected place of finish would be about 800th if all 2000 ppl entered were the average distribution of players. And my standard deviation for a second attempt would be 780th - 820th, and for a third 760th - 840th, and so on for each successive attempt. If I have to place 32 std deviations above my average in order to cash, then this would be a statistical outlier. I can only assume at this level that this would be -EV. I am not a statistician, so if this logic is flawed, please forgive.

Now, let's say that I am 30% above average, and same situation as above, then my expected place of finish would be 400th. Again, this would leave me about 8 std deviations away from cashing. Much better than the first situation but still -EV.

Finally, if I was 40% + average, then my expected finish would be 200th, and now I am less than one std deviation away from cashing out, and i would consider this situation a +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain these numbers?

what does "10% + above average player" mean?

why do you think your standard deviation is 20 places in your second event? why does your standard deviation increase in successive events? i'm not sure you understand the statistical concepts you're trying to discuss here.

do you intend to share these numbers with your backers?

[semipro]

You're right, I may not understand the statistics correctly, that's why I said please forgive if I sound naive. But the 10%, 30% and 40% above average numbers I threw out as examples of where I would be in an MTT. And my use of standard deviation is probably WAY out of line. I am equaling one std deviation as .1 times the % above avg of my ability, for instance when 10% above avg w/a 2000 ppl field, then i was thinking of one standard deviation as .10 x .10 x 2000 = 20, and for 30%, .10 x .30 x 2000 = 60. Just reviewing my notes, i have no idea how i came to the conclusion that equals one standard deviation. It's been over 10 years since I took my statistics course, so my thinking may be just a WEEEEEE bit off.

No, i don't intend on sharing these numbers w/my backers about the MTT's. I will let them know the realities of MTT's, but i will not get into deep numbers with them.