OT: Party vs Stars (ROI impact)

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my limited experience with the Stars 11s, my 1,2,3 percentage is 23,29,25. Once I get ITM it seems to be a matter of who wins the most coin flips, without much regard to stack sizes coming in off the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]77% ITM?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is over 100% ROI. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] I love it when people just write down arbitrary numbers for their own stats.


>ZIPPPY

[ChrisW]

Stars players are better at low limits, but the Stars structure is more skillful because:

1) Each player starts with more chips at Stars relative to the blind sizes. (PP t1000 is approximately equal to Stars t1500, so the t800 games at PP are much shallower.)

2) The blinds increase more slowly at Stars. Even a Stars turbo has five minute levels. When the table gets shorthanded, it plays well over ten hands in those five minutes. More hands per level= more skill. In Stars non-turbos, the difference in blind escalation vs. PP is just huge. (Of course, one can play twice as many Turbos per hour as non-turbos, so a good player's hourly rate will almost certainly be higher in the Turbos even though his ROI will be lower.)

So, you probably need a slightly higher skill level to beat the Stars games, but if you have that higher skill level you should have a greater ROI at the given buyin. Or, to put it another way, a small long-run winner at PP might be a small loser playing at Stars, but a large long-run winner at PP might easily have a larger ROI at Stars.

I wonder what is the maximum ROI possible in the Stars $11 non-turbos. I'd guess 100% is emintently achievable by a strong player, i.e. a winner at much higher limits. If the player achieves equal numbers of firsts through thirds, he'd need to scratch two thirds of the time to achieve that goal. If good players in the much stronger and less formful $109 PP SNGs can finish ITM well over 40% of the time while still trying to win, they should be able to get 67% (or a little less with a disproportionate number of wins) in a weak, deep-stacked event.

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I want to see the results of the poll, so I am going to vote that they are the same, eventhough I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I did. Looks like the results might be skewed somewhat.

Suppose you play 90 $10+1 SNG at PP and 90 $15+1 SNG at PS. Let's also suppose you finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. equal amounts of the time.

At PP, you'll pay $990 in entries and fees, and be paid $50x9 + $30x9 + $20x9 = $900 => -9.1% ROI.

At PS, you'll pay $1440 in entries and fees, and be paid $67.50x10 + $40.50x10 + $27x10 = $1350 => -6.25% ROI.

None of this should be surprising, it's just the difference in the rake percentage. So, let's work with your 1:1:3 1st:2nd:3rd ratio. If we fix the ratio, but increase ITM% by 1/9 (to reflect one fewer player), the ITM% increases to 41.7% x 10/9 = 46.33% => 9.27% 1st, 9.27% 2nd, and 27.8% 3rd (to keep the 1:1:3 ratio). That means you expect to be paid $17.52 per $15+1 SNG => 9.5% ROI.

You already computed your PP ROI to be 6.1%. Given just this information, you'd be better off at PS. But, the differences in the game structures is likely far more important than the 10v9 players or the 6.7%v10% rakes. Whether the different structure at PS is good or bad for you is something you'll probably only find out with experience.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars players are better at low limits

[/ QUOTE ]

You know...after hearing this for months and finally playing for a couple of months on Stars I'm not sure I believe this widely held assumption anymore.

Different? Yes.

'Better'? I don't actually think so.

Yugoslav

[Dr_Jeckyl_00]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you play 90 $10+1 SNG at PP and 90 $15+1 SNG at PS. Let's also suppose you finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. equal amounts of the time.

At PP, you'll pay $990 in entries and fees, and be paid $50x9 + $30x9 + $20x9 = $900 => -9.1% ROI.

At PS, you'll pay $1440 in entries and fees, and be paid $67.50x10 + $40.50x10 + $27x10 = $1350 => -6.25% ROI.

None of this should be surprising, it's just the difference in the rake percentage. So, let's work with your 1:1:3 1st:2nd:3rd ratio. If we fix the ratio, but increase ITM% by 1/9 (to reflect one fewer player), the ITM% increases to 41.7% x 10/9 = 46.33% => 9.27% 1st, 9.27% 2nd, and 27.8% 3rd (to keep the 1:1:3 ratio). That means you expect to be paid $17.52 per $15+1 SNG => 9.5% ROI.

You already computed your PP ROI to be 6.1%. Given just this information, you'd be better off at PS. But, the differences in the game structures is likely far more important than the 10v9 players or the 6.7%v10% rakes. Whether the different structure at PS is good or bad for you is something you'll probably only find out with experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with you... I believe I said (or attempted to say) in my post this morning, that if you get ITM 10% more due to 1 less opponent at Stars, AND this additional ITM is 1st or 2nd, then Stars would provide the better ROI.

By game structure I assume you mean differences in starting chips and blinds (amt and intervals) and they should have an impact too... but I am not sure how to measure it...

[ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with you... I believe I said (or attempted to say) in my post this morning, that if you get ITM 10% more due to 1 less opponent at Stars, AND this additional ITM is 1st or 2nd, then Stars would provide the better ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]No reason to say it has to be 1st or 2nd, just figure out what it will be on average. Even if the extra ITM is distributed in the 1:1:3 ratio you cited, you'll be ahead at PS.
[ QUOTE ]
By game structure I assume you mean differences in starting chips and blinds (amt and intervals) and they should have an impact too... but I am not sure how to measure it...

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think you can measure it. This sort of thing will affect different people differently. It will probably take some time to get used to, so you might experience a brief downswing. Then again, from what I read here, the PS turbos aren't that much different than the PP SNGs.