Updated Simulation of Biggest Buyin Drop Expected: 43 (15/14/13 ratio)

[Mr_J]

"with 15/14/13 it was 23 or something"

Remember that ratio gives 31% ROI, and no-one should be achieving that longterm (if you are it's time to move up).

"u can use aleo's to get 13.33% ror with 36.25%itm/10.333%roi, but that's ror EVER, not for 1000 tournies"

Eh same thing. If you can hit 10% over the first few hundred sngs you're pretty safe.

[Nicholasp27]

i don't have time to do the whole chart right now...but if u wanna tell me your 1/2/3 ratio, i'll tell you what your average expected biggest drop is in 10k sngs

[Back In Black]

How about for 13.5, 12.5, 11.5? That is 37% ITM and 15% ROI for me in the 50's right now.

[Nicholasp27]

53 buyins was biggest drop in 1000 sims of 10k sets

29.74 was the average, so 30 buy-ins is pretty safe, but 55 is better

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
How about for 13.5, 12.5, 11.5? That is 37% ITM and 15% ROI for me in the 50's right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's a more realistic distribution for a very good player. I'd like to see the ROR/max downswing numbers for this, too.

Interestingly, though, I will say this: I've played thousands of SNGs at just about every level and have never had a losing "block" of more than 500. My long term distributions and ROI are in line with the numbers above. Yet, I'm certain that I've had a bigger downswing than should be possible and I know at least 2 other pros who could say the same thing.

There must be some pretty significant intra-session and inter-session variables contributing to losing stream probabilities. Everybody that I know who plays 1000 or so SNGs a month and beats the piss out of them drops 30+ buy-ins quite regularly.

Similarly, you can "prove" mathematically that a 2BB/100 limit holdem winner should never ever lose more than 400 BBs... but I know of more than 10 players who win at this rate or better and have dropped 500+ BBs on a cooler.

Meh.

Irieguy

[Nicholasp27]

well this is based on your numbers being a certain ratio...but most people, when on a very bad streak, will not play 100% and thus will be lower than what they think their ratios are...remember, this is based on ACTUAL ratio, which you never know for sure and can't really approximate very accurately for thousands of sngs...and even then u change your game, etc and your ratios change..

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
well this is based on your numbers being a certain ratio...but most people, when on a very bad streak, will not play 100% and thus will be lower than what they think their ratios are...remember, this is based on ACTUAL ratio, which you never know for sure and can't really approximate very accurately for thousands of sngs...and even then u change your game, etc and your ratios change..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I see.

Anyways, when you ran the numbers for the more modest ratios the downswing max fell more in line with what I've seen anyways.

Thank you very much. This kind of stuff is helpful for sanity, I think.

Irieguy

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
well this is based on your numbers being a certain ratio...but most people, when on a very bad streak, will not play 100% and thus will be lower than what they think their ratios are...remember, this is based on ACTUAL ratio, which you never know for sure and can't really approximate very accurately for thousands of sngs...and even then u change your game, etc and your ratios change..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I was hoping you'd put some uncertainty into the distribution during a single run of 10,000. I made this post a while ago after thinking about doing something similar to what you've done. Do you think you could put some randomization into the finish distribution, say, chaging it every 10 tournaments selecting from a normal distribution? Make the mean 38%ITM 15% ROI with some set 1/2/3 relative fraction and then build the distribution around that? Nice work so far BTW.


SlimP