Party Super Musings

This is why it takes ridiculous patience and a really high bankroll to be a true pro MTT player. The variance is extremely high.

[locutus2002]

The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.

Hence returns, especially large ones, are likely to be a poor metric for gauging the quality/improvement of your game. The critical skill to improving as a player is based on self-perspicacity, and discipled review and analysis of HH. Skills which many of us develop for the first time in college. (Endogenous change)

It is also unlikely that the inevitable changing of the composition of a tournament over time (weaker to stronger, etc) would be reflected in ROI. (Exogenous change)

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Over in the STT forum we like to say meaningful sample sizes start at around 1000 SnGs....am I crazy or should that figure be even higher for MTTs...like....way higher?

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]
Over in the STT forum we like to say meaningful sample sizes start at around 1000 SnGs....am I crazy or should that figure be even higher for MTTs...like....way higher?

[/ QUOTE ]


The number is so high, its not even important to bother figuring it out, especially if you are regularly entering supers with 1000 entrants.

[locutus2002]

I'm going to ask my wife how to do the math for this.

In a super you win a small range of values up to 5 times entry fee, in a super you win a large range of values up to 150+ times entry fee. If it scales its about a million tournaments to get the same level of accuracy.

Of course 1000 tournaments is probably way too many to get a meaningful estimate of ROI on STT given the small fieldsize (10) and small return (5X). Inspite of STT dogma.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course 1000 tournaments is probably way too many to get a meaningful estimate of ROI on STT given the small fieldsize (10) and small return (5X). Inspite of STT dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

1,000 SNGs will be meaningful, and will almost certainly be enough to tell if you are a winner, but it won't be extremely accurate in terms of roi.

[Benal]

Sats are a good way to offset the cost of playing these regularly. I'm quite confident that for the cost of 4 direct buyins ($648), I could win at least twice that number of entries via sats.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
Sats are a good way to offset the cost of playing these regularly. I'm quite confident that for the cost of 4 direct buyins ($648), I could win at least twice that number of entries via sats.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

its as if i said "oh i could go to a 200 NL ring game and double my buy-in, thats a 200+15 right there"

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

[/ QUOTE ]

Say by chance I win every sat I play, I'll be waaay better than break even for the year when I win a Super vs buying in directly (as per OP).

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

[/ QUOTE ]

Say by chance I win every sat I play, I'll be waaay better than break even for the year when I win a Super vs buying in directly (as per OP).

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered about this line of reasoning. It really just doesn't make sense to me. A satellite has risk, like any other form of poker. In addition, it takes time to win a satellite. How is a satellite any different than playing a $60 turbo STT and taking your winnings to the $215 tourney on Sunday? IMO, it isn't.

The only question you should be asking yourself is where you think you can most easily make money. For example, do you suck at satellite situations but you're a STT expert? In that case, you should not enter a satellite... you should just use STTs to build your roll to the point where you can enter some big MTTs (btw, I'm assuming that's your goal here, even if entering those MTTs would be outside of normal bankroll management guidelines). If you suck at STTs and you tend to kill satellites (superior patience, whatever), maybe you should consider just playing satellites. I know of at least one person who makes a comfortable hourly wage from playing satellites to the $215. He's convinced you find the worst players there and he doesn't like shorthanded play. It's the best place for him to make money right now.

Forget the idea that you're getting in cheaper. Just focus on playing where you think you can make the largest hourly wage within your risk tolerance level (or listen to strassa and play where you can develop your game... but that's a different mindset).