A post to put all of your results in to perspective...

[inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[Mr_J]

Citanul the maths seems fine to me???

"Glad you asked. 2%.

If you're really 16%, then youre 15% to run hot at 21% and and 17% to run cold at 12%. Are we having fun yet? "

Heh. Forget the last bit, I'll just remember that I'm more likely to be a 20%er running cold than a 12%er running hot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Can't we all just read Irie's post, acknowledge how good Irie wants me to think I am, and then put it down as variance?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time for a web app. This comes up a lot and it's kind of fun to play with.

I may have time for this tomorrow.

eastbay

[inyaface]

sweet thanks

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Citanul the maths seems fine to me???

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm hoping eastbay will chime in on this or something, but here goes, and then I'm sleeping, so I hope I make some semblance of sense on the first go round.

The point is that you can't just throw out results. You can't say "well I've played 1000 games, and my ROI was x, so the fact that my ROI is now y<x because I lost 42 buyins, well that means it's just like, in the next 900 games, going to even back out to around ROI = x."

You don't get to choose where your intervals end, it's all one big interval. If you've played 1000 games with ROI x and then the next 100 games drop your ROI to y, your ROI is y. It might not be your "true" ROI, if there is such a thing, but it is the statistic to be called ROI.

Particularly a player who has a small sample size just can't say that a run which dramaticly alters their overall ROI is just some kind of bump in the road. They are, after all, going to need quite a heater to bring their ROI back up to where they feel their "ROI" should be. You can't just assume that such a heater is in the waits. After all, you've never had a 1000 sng run that has been on such a heater [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

now, 1000 22s at a 20% ROI means you made ~$4400. Dropping 42 buyins means you lost $924. That is neither an insignificant chunk of your winnings nor close to all of them. But I mean, even when looking at this number you can't honestly look and think "oh well, I'll get right back to my 20% ROI in just a sec" or something like that.

Actually, I guess that's kind of the point. Over the next 1000 sngs you play, if you're a 20% ROI guy, you expect to have a 20% ROI. Your next 1000 games results don't have any reason to make up for the last x games where you had your big drop, they just happen. Over the next 1000 games, you hopefully expect to make something like $4400. Not $5300. The big drop goes in the overall results, and later, when you have a big sample size, they'll still be there, sucking down the average. That's just the way it works.

citanul

[45suited]

I just shrug my shoulders and use Occam's Razor when analyzing my poker results. And I think that by doing so, I'm a lot closer to a true self evaluation than someone relying on a belief that they are one of the unlucky 3%.

You may well be better than 12%, but perhaps this seeming obsession is starting to affect your play. I'm serious about this.

[Mr_J]

"The point is that you can't just throw out results."

I didn't mean the point in that way. It was just an example. I just meant that if someone hits 20% over 1000, and then drops 42 buyins over 200 sngs, it doesn't mean that they're a 13%ROI player.

I didn't conclude that I'm a 21% player because I hit 21% over my first 1k $22s. Remember, I'm not the one who tried to draw any conclusions from my results (other people did). Hell, I made the OP just to show how significant variance can be, so I'm not about to try and draw any conclusions from a 1k sample.

I'm not results orientated, and have never estimated my skill level based on them. My estimate of 15% at the $33s before I got coaching was just a comparison to other players. Iries estimate just made me more sure of myself. I've subconciously used what I know, how I think about HHs and the results of other players here to get an idea of where I am at. Never even thought of just basing it on results.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean the point in that way. It was just an example. I just meant that if someone hits 20% over 1000, and then drops 42 buyins over 200 sngs, it doesn't mean that they're a 13%ROI player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand why that is wrong???? If somebody plays 1,000 sngs with a 20% ROI, then in the next 200 he has a 200 buyin upswing, does it mean he really is a 20% ROI player and not a 33%ROI like his results say?

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


X%'er getting 12.5% or worse over 1350:
16.4% -> 19.3%
19.1% -> 7.2%
23.6% -> 0.7%

eastbay

PS My 3% post was a tad mischievous. I sort of knew that a fight would break out about what the 3% "meant." It doesn't really mean anything other than what it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you dont mind could you tell me what the chances are of a 16.74 ROI over 500 SNGS having "X" expected ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time for a web app. This comes up a lot and it's kind of fun to play with.

I may have time for this tomorrow.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be sweet as hell [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats taking it a bit too far. Everyone has downswings that pushes ROI downwards. I have in 3000 SnGs had one 40 Tourney downswing that lasted 500 games and I think five 20 buyin downswings. If I got to subtract them because they ruined my ROI and didn't show what kind of player I was, there is no way that this new shiny ROI would accurately represent the player I was.

No one here hasn't acknowledged that you may have run badly for a period of your play.

I have previously stated that I believe 10k tourneys is minimum before we talk about true ROI. That goes for you, me and the guy on the super heater. Before that we only have more or less good guesses. But I can guarantee you one thing. You will have several big downswings messing up your ROI before you hit 10k.

Of course you can improve your results over time. I have spent several months very slowly but surely diluting the bad results I had when starting out. If I was consciously trying to do it I would go insane because once you have a couple of thousand of SnGs even a week of winning doesn't make a big a dent in that lifetime ROI.

Anyway, who cares. I think it is only healthy that someone who is running badly is posting their ROI since most others only do it when running good.