Party Poker 10+1s and 20+2s ROI

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I forget, but a kinda FAQ put out by a poster named "the shadow" is the first place I turn to look things up here. Try searching by his name or something; he doesn't post much.

[/ QUOTE ]

IT'S NOT A FAQ!!!!!!!!

It also doesn't address the issue posed in the OP.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

Pooh-bah's and Carpal Tunnel's have seen this question so many times it drives them crazy. I'm only an old hand, so I'll tell you.

Standard quote is 40% is a great great great ROI at the $11s and not much different for the $22s. That's just the standard quote. No one knows if it is accurate.

I know, I know, I know, your ROI is 68%. My advice is to use the search function to figure out how to manage a bankroll in the SNGs and move up when you have the roll. Don't bother trying to set an ROI record.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
$10+1:

Average... -9.09%
Decent...0%
Good...10%
Real Good...20%
Superb...30%
Sustainable ceiling...40%

$20+2: Same as $10+1, except a tad lower (just a tad though)

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it -9.09%? i never got that, and ive read it before.

anyway. im sure i read that stupid sucker challenged anyone to prove over 5K games at the $33 level how much they could beat the game by. the top answer being 18%, with an average of 15%.

so by my thinking, 20% at the 10s and 20s is pretty sweet. but im doubting anyone has proven this over such a figure due to the tendancy to move up.

Phill

[Big Limpin']

If you are just winning back your buyin (less vig), you are losing the vig cost, per every buy-in including vig.
$-1/$11 or $-2/$22 or $-3/$33 = -9.09090909%
(-vig) / (buyin)

[gumpzilla]

Two things:

1) 5k is a huge number of games for somebody to play with an ROI that would be greater than 20% without moving on to the next level. So who's going to be sitting around trying to prove that? Not the strongest players, most likely. I think you can probably infer that it's possible to do slightly better than that.

2) An average player will cash 3 times out of 10, with an equal distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd. You can work out that this means that the expected return on each game is -.1 buyins, the rake. - (1 / 11) = -9.09% figure that you see.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
1) 5k is a huge number of games for somebody to play with an ROI that would be greater than 20% without moving on to the next level. So who's going to be sitting around trying to prove that? Not the strongest players, most likely. I think you can probably infer that it's possible to do slightly better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i get your meaning, your saying that after a short amount of time people will move up from a level once they have the roll padded and are reasonably sure they are beating it for a good ROI.

however, the $33 level is know to have many pros inhabiting it as the low variance and ability to multitable with weaker opponants balances out the reasons to move up.

dont get me wrong, a lot wont see it this way, but thats the reasons that people do. some stop at 30s, some 50s, others simply dont and keeping moving up. but the 30s as i understand it is the lowest stop point most people pick.

-----

if you mean that 20% at 10s and 20s wont be proven over 5K games, i agree, i cant think of a reason for people to stop moving up at these levels. i tried to convey that in my orig post, i apologise if it didnt come across that way.

Phill

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
No statistics are even close to useful until your sample size is at least 500, and even then it's sketchy. There you go. If I'm off on any of these, someone correct me. If anyone else asks, direct them to this post. Let us not hear of this again.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 500, your true ROI is apparently in the boundary [x -.15, x + .15] where x is your current ROI.

[maddog2030]

Post deleted by maddog2030

[BradleyT]

You should delete this post fast.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
if i get your meaning, your saying that after a short amount of time people will move up from a level once they have the roll padded and are reasonably sure they are beating it for a good ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
however, the $33 level is know to have many pros inhabiting it as the low variance and ability to multitable with weaker opponants balances out the reasons to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not incompatible with what I said.

There can be lots of pros that eke out a 15% ROI 8-tabling the 30s. This doesn't say anything about whether people who were beating the game for 25% wouldn't move up to 50. Obviously not all of them will, but given Player A and Player B, with ROI(A) > ROI(B), player A is more likely to move up if there is a level to move up to. So, if you're looking at people who have played many thousands of games at a particular level, you're probably going to see ROI distributions that are not all that representative of what's possible or likely because the tails of the distribution are likely to have dropped off - the bad ones because they busted out before they could muster a few thousand SNGs, the excellent ones because it was clear that they had a good chance of making more money by moving up. So I think it's probably quite reasonable to think that 25% ROI or so in the 30s is excellent, difficult, but quite possibly doable.