sit and go mu and sigma

[BillC]

I haven't seen much on risk and reward for these tournaments, so here is a stab. I am basing my observations on the ratios
of mu to sigma and sigma squared, which are used in blackjack and all positive ev games.

I get the impression from lurking that a return of 30-40% is the
ideal norm for a skilled player. I put in some numbers based on what I have gleaned, and came up with a sigma of about
2.1 or 2.2 (i.e 210-220%), neglecting fee). This means that the required bankroll for a "skilled player" is almost an order of magnitude lower for these games as opposed to ring games (where the ev is about 1 bb, with sigma of about 10 bb's). Of course I am assuming the player
can consistently beat games at with the above parameters.
Instead of the often recommended 300 BBs, you only need about 40 buy-ins to have the equivalent risk parameters
(e.g.risk of ruin).

Conclusion; if you can beat these game at a good rate, they are much better than the comparable ring games.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Bill,

Actually it's less than that. For 1-table SNGs, a skilled player needs about 20 buy-ins to play comfortably. For the 2-table SNGs on PokerStars, a skilled player can get by on only 15 buy-ins comfortably.

I drop down a buy-in or two if I hit a cold wave (four or more consecutive non-money finishes). E.g.: for most of this week, I played $33 buy-ins because my cards were so ratty.

Then, when my cards turned around today, I moved up to my usual buy-ins and rebuilt. I ended up just under even for the week, thanks largely to a 1st place finish in a $109 tonight.

By dropping in stakes during soft spells, or when you find you're over your head against opponents at a given buy-in, you can play quite comfortably on 15-20 buy-ins. I don't know what that means in terms of sigmas or mus, but that's been my experience and consistent with what I generally hear from others here.

Cris

[oneeye13]

shouldn't this also vary wildly depending on a player's style?

[Hotrod0823]

I think that has to play a part in it. If you are very aggressive you may have a very lucky day and win a lot of tourneys but not finish in second or third at all.

Kind of an all or nothing situation. A less aggressive and more solid player can just hit a poor day and have a few wins but a few second or thirds as well. They may experience the same amount of money won but they have a different winning or "in the money" percentage. With the player that either comes in first or loses having a much higer variance and a harder time riding out the loses.

Hotrod

What that all means statistically I have no idea [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]