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

[Mr_J]

You both misunderstood. I'll try to explain it more clearly:

" 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?"

Obivously not. I'm saying that just because he is now at 33% ROI doesn't mean 33% is his true ROI.

Back to my example.

Just because someone was 20% over 1k, and now 13% over 1200, doesn't mean that their true ROI is 13%. It could be 13%, it could be 20%, it could be anything.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mr_J]

Read the part where citanul and nick B have replied. Maybe I didn't explain my original point very clearly since it's been mistunderstood by a few people.

I'll rewrite that point:

"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."

Reads:
1k sngs is not a significant sample, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Any decent swing affects ROI by quite a bit so it's impossible to estimate ROI based just on results.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Read the part where citanul and nick B have replied. Maybe I didn't explain my original point very clearly since it's been mistunderstood by a few people.

I'll rewrite that point:

"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."

Reads:
1k sngs is not a significant sample, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Any decent swing affects ROI by quite a bit so it's impossible to estimate ROI based just on results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what we reacted to. You seemed to draw the conclusion initially that your 'true ROI' was higher than the sample, simply because the downswing affected your ROI.

[astarck]

[ QUOTE ]
as an aside.. not ONE of my sets of 750 has been within 3% of my ACTUAL roi. its usually around 10 or around 22+. thats how it works for some stupid rigged reason. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker is rigged.

[Myst]

Thats why its important to play hours, not results.

The results will come given enough time, as long as you truly are a winning player.

[Al P]

If you quit playing SnG's today how could you claim "I was a 20% ROI player" when your ROI isn't 20% at the time you quit?

IF you play 1000 SNGs at a 20% ROI, then at the time the 1000th SNG was played you were at a 20% ROI (clearly.).

You don't seem to be getting what the others are trying to tell you. If you play 1000 more SNGs, and within those last 1000 you had a HUGE drop and your ROI was 10%.

After the 2000th SNG was played, according to statistics, you are a 15% ROI player. Don't you understand?

You can't section off the runs that you like and say "Thats my ROI!". That is called lying to yourself and it can really hurt your game. Downswings are a part of the calculation of your overall ROI, you have to include everything or the number means absolutly nothing.

Of course it is possible to run well below your "normal" ROI over a series of games. Sure. You got unlucky. Keep going and your real ROI will emerge at, say, 20,000 games.

Cheers

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
just for references sake, you should probably post your total 22s stats for prior to this year.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think he has any. in an earlier post (correct me if i'm wrong mr j) he said he started playing SNGs in Jan.

which is why this post is a circular argument. Mr J knows he's good. we don't know him so we can't confirm that. he doesn't have enough data to convince us that he really is good. so we have nowhere to go with this conversation. the average reader in this forum isn't going to believe his assertion about the quality of his play until he's got a few thousand SNGs to back it up, or until he posts comments about actual hands showing that he knows what he's taklking about. until that happens, his advice isn't considered to have any merit.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to point out that this could be variance, and noone replying to the thread seems to accept this as a reasonable possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree. most of us accept that it may be variance. the statement that is being objected to is your statement that you are 100% certain that you are a winner. this is because your statistical results alone are insufficient to make that claim, and we don't have access to any other information.

the fact that irie says you good is probably good enough. but unless irie has reviewed every one of your hand histories, even he doesn't KNOW that you don't go on tilt when you start losing, making you a losing player overall, for example. i'm not saying this is this is the case, obviously i have no idea. that's the point. None of us have any idea about your game other than your results, which are not enough to support your claim. that's just the end of the conversation until you can provide more data or until you start making comments about hands that are posting showing that you're really good because you can analyse the hands properly.