Would this be ROI and ITM for the "average" player?

[vindikation]

Would this be ROI and ITM for the "average" player?

This is just using straight probabilities:

1st: 10%
2nd: 10%
3rd: 10%
4th: 10%
5th: 10%
6th: 10%
7th: 10%
8th: 10%
9th: 10%
10th: 10%

ITM: 30%
ROI: -10% (breaking even minus the vig)

[Apathy]

for any STT with 10% rake, yes that is what everyone's results would be if all things were equal. I don't think its all that close to the actual average though.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
for any STT with 10% rake, yes that is what everyone's results would be if all things were equal. I don't think its all that close to the actual average though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too much smog down in TO I guess. Actually, it isn't close to the actual average....it IS the actual average! (as long as by average you are referring to the mean). The median result may be far from the average, but I'm pretty sure the average has to be at the average......

[JP Rocks]

What exactly are you trying to get at? What is an average player? Why am I replying to this, I dont have nearly enough forum cred to flame anyone just yet...

[DasLeben]

Interestingly enough, this topic made me look at my statistics in a little different light. Right now, I'm down $74 over my last 70 tournies playing 10+1. However, I've obviously paid $70 in tourney fees alone. This leaves me at an insignificant -$4, not counting the vig.

I don't think this really means anything, but I'm glad this showed me a different perspective.

[Blarg]

That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one entirely confused by this post?

EDIT: Ah, does the site take as much for the 5s and for the 10s where you play?

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's how I started thinking about my results in the fives. After about 70 of them, all but two bucks lost was just fees alone. I figured if I was exactly as good at the 10's as I was at the 5's, my loss would have been cut in half. I could be a more profitable player without being a better one, if the 10's played substantially the same as the 5's did -- at least for someone at my skill level. Turns out that they do. And if the last 139 of my tourneys had been at the 5's instead of the 10's, I'd be in the red instead of in the black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one entirely confused by this post?

EDIT: Ah, does the site take as much for the 5s and for the 10s where you play?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's probably referring to Party, where both the 5s and 10s take $1 for vig. That's why the Party $5+1s are ridiculous to play: the 20% fee.

[Blarg]

Yes, I am. I started out in SNG's just this month, and after a long run of them I was in the red for almost the exact amount of the fees I had paid. Since the fees are $1 at both the Party 5+1's and their 10+1's, I was figuring that paying a smaller percentage in rake could effectively make me more money even if I played exactly as good/bad as before, if I just moved up to the 10's. And if the 10's weren't any harder.

[vindikation]

This made me think more about the vig than anything else. 10% doesn't seem like much when you buy in, but in the big picture it makes quite an impact on your ROI.

A good thing about Poker Stars' bonuses is that you can play their SnG's basically for free (the money you get back is the same as the vig you pay in the tournament). Poker Room is a little worse you get $1 back in every $1.40 you pay in vig.

I'm not that great a player (~ 20% ROI over 250 SnG's) so the Bonus thing combined with solid SnG play has helped out my bankroll a lot.