Some "higher" STEPs math.

[bathroompants]

but if you're not playing a perfect system where everyone is equal playing field, like we are now...how are the steps not a great deal for good players? I wasn't around for the discussion when the original steps came out, but I see the mini steps as catering to the 5+1/20+2/30+3 players that most of us are beating for a good return.

Are these still a worse deal for winning players than regular sngs? I'm personally running the steps to see for myself and I can't seem to wrap my head around if they're a good deal or not, since they seem like such a good one - I understand that it isn't in partypoker's best interest to make better faster ways for good players to extract money out of the worse players and cash it out.

The way I'm looking at it is there is an incredibly low ROR, albeit while party keeps sucking in rake, and I also think that for most people on here at least the regular steps are definately beatable, especially the minis as the lower buyins entice the regular sng players who are losing with the big prize at the top for such a small buyin.

I sort of forgot where I was going with this, but I'm really interested in seeing why the steps are bad for a winning player.

[curtains]

Apathy I bet you'd lose your shirt making this bet with people.

[adanthar]

Nah, it'd involve playing something like...2-6 in Step 1 gets a freeroll so...800? 1000? God knows how many sats for at least a couple of months and a good chunk of my bankroll so I'll pass.

But it's doable, basically because it's possible to fold into endlessly repeating S1, then possible to fold into endlessly repeating S4 if you win, like, two hands first. Eventually, you'll hit an S4 when you catch cards on the bubble and that'll be that.

If you look at Party right now, there's no such thing as an S1H with over 6 players left at level *4* (and one with 6 left at level 2, lol). So basically, you can fold in, never lose except when aces get cracked early (in fact if I was doing a challenge with a side bet like this I'd often fold AA with 7 left) and eventually make it in through sheer persistence. [censored], now that I'm looking at this, I could do it for 1K if I never showered or left the house.

But it'd drive me crazy long before then, so no.

On the other hand, *do* you get rakeback for repeating a Step?

[curtains]

btw I was talking about mini steps, not higher steps! Sorry!

[Benholio]

I've been thinking about the math behind this....

If you play well enough to beat the rake for each individual step (1% ROI, even), then your expected cost for a step 5 seat must be < $15,000. You are winning enough at each individual tourney to cover the rake, so where along the way would you lose those rake dollars?

The math in this thread is kind of like saying a -10% ROI player (or -RAKE% ROI) will lose more and more money the more tournaments he plays in. Well, of course he will. What about the 10% ROI player? The more tourneys he plays in, the more money he will win, right?

I submit that as long as your expected ROI at any level is positive after the rake, that you gain value throughout the structure and would expect to pay less than face value for a step 5 seat.

Afterall, someone with a 1% ROI at the $109's is constantly paying rake, too, but he comes out ahead somehow.

[adanthar]

OK, in my last 1000 Party SNG's (at all limits, types, etc.) I've got about ~200 7-10 finishes. If I play Step 1's the right way and basically avoid *any* trouble hands for any reason before 50/100, I think I can cut that in half. So basically, out of 10 Step 1's I can expect around 9 'money' finishes. Yes, I'm paying rake for all of them, but I don't care since the wager is for 10K and I still have $9,967 in my account.

I then have to make it to 7'th in Step 2 using the exact same strategy (mostly the same morons in both games so why not) but we'll assume I stop playing like a weak/tight retard in Step 3 so as to maximize my chances of winning. Still, not finishing 9'th gets me at least another Step 2 in both Step 3 and 4, and out of those 1000 SNG's I've finished 9'th or 10'th 64 times, or 6.4%.

Basically, I'll stay in the system 90% of the time during Step 1, something around the same number in Step 2, and over that in Steps 3 and 4.

Dear God...in order to do this wager properly I'd potentially have to play 3,000 SNG's. [censored] no. But it's doable.

[Apathy]

Interesting idea for a strategy, unfortunatly as you pointed out you would have to play an insane amount of SNGs and the process would be very frustrating. I don't have nearly enough money to make a bet big enough for you to do this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jpg7n16]

By the way... can anyone post the payout structure for s5 tourneys on here?

[adanthar]

Hahaha...yeah, thank God you don't, because if you did I'd have to take it and that would suck [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Even doing it for $1000 would be 300 SNG's. No way...but I bet someone decent with a bankroll problem could get staked in this way and make out like a bandit (about 2.5 years later when he finally cashes.)

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about the math behind this....

If you play well enough to beat the rake for each individual step (1% ROI, even), then your expected cost for a step 5 seat must be < $15,000. You are winning enough at each individual tourney to cover the rake, so where along the way would you lose those rake dollars?

The math in this thread is kind of like saying a -10% ROI player (or -RAKE% ROI) will lose more and more money the more tournaments he plays in. Well, of course he will. What about the 10% ROI player? The more tourneys he plays in, the more money he will win, right?

I submit that as long as your expected ROI at any level is positive after the rake, that you gain value throughout the structure and would expect to pay less than face value for a step 5 seat.

Afterall, someone with a 1% ROI at the $109's is constantly paying rake, too, but he comes out ahead somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking Benholio. It is like asking how much would an average player have to pay in order to be up 100 buy-ins? The answer is astronomical because they are fighting -9% ROI. Change the 'average' to +9 ROI player and the math changes dramatically.


I agree with your assertion that the answer has to be less than the step 5 buy-in if the player is +ROI for all the lower steps. Each round the player makes money and the shows up as a discount to the step 5 buy-in. If they are +ROI on step 5s also then they have to invest less than the payout in order to win it by definition.


Pokerscott