ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[Allinlife]

lol it's funny so many people are taking this so personally FOR justin. I belielive no one here has any doubts on justin's tourny skills.

I really appreciate this post OP..nice to see how varaince is like on MTTs.

To be honest, I still have hard time understanding how one could have such an edge in most party MTTs where average stack is around 15bb...oh well.

[PrayingMantis]

I'm very surprised from the fact that some seem to be surprised by the data in the OP.

Variance in large field MTTs is completely crazy.

There's nothing strange or surprising about ZJ being "down" in MTTs on stars if you "ignore" this last result, and in fact, "ignoring" his last result is completely absurd when analyzing such data, BECAUSE the variance is huge.

Extreme example: suppose you buy a $1 ticket into some kind of a lottery game in which you have a 1:10K chance to win 1 billion dollars. No other prizes. This is a hugely +EV gabmle for you. Suppose you "play" 21,653 times, lose all 21,653 first times and then win the big one on the 21,654th time. And then you keep on playing and lose 87,000 more times.

Obviously, there's no sense in analyzing this data while ignoring the "one single lucky result" in which you won 1 billion, even though it is very clear that you were extremely "lucky" (in some clear sense) in that one particular 21,654th game when you won.

[gobboboy]

Another good example of MTT play is something like a role playing game. If you roll a 4+ 10 times in a row, you win the tournament. So what? A fish could do the same thing. But the advantage you get over being a better player is that you get yourselves into slightly better rolls. A bad player may have to roll a 5+ 10 times in a row. It really adds up over the long run.

Anyway, good job ZJ. MTG players represent.

[N 82 50 24]

I'm glad most people appreciate the point I was trying to make... variance is a bitch in MTTs.

I will look into the standard deviation calculation.

Also, I don't think Justin is embarrassed about his stats... maybe just having all these supposedly private stats out there for the first time is a bit discomforting. I did ask him whether it was okay to do this and he said yes, so he had to expect something like this was coming.

[ilya]

I don't think anyone can say with any confidence whatsoever that Justin is a winning/losing player based on these stats.

definitely interesting to look at, though. thanks. thanks also to Justin for allowing this to be posted.

[CardSharpCook]

Standard.

My Stars stats would be the same way. Take out my top cash and I've probably lost $10k or more over there. Party is different because I've been able to play more larger buyin, smaller field tournies.... And more Omaha and Limit tournies.

Variance is a btch.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to address this, as I feel it's a flawed way of thinking. Satellites don't allow you to lower your "average cost of entry" into a tournament. That's a bit like saying you're "in for $11" in a Step 5 on Party. It really doesn't make sense. You *won money* at the satellite, not a ticket or whatever. You then choose to use that "ticket" to enter a larger buyin tourney. Even if you don't have the choice to unregister, by entering the satellite you're choosing to attempt to win a certain amount of $ to be used towards a larger buyin tourney.

Let's say you want to play the PCA and you need $11,000. You should play wherever your hourly rate is highest within your risk tolerance. If that's $200 STTs on Party, then so be it. If you feel like you have a great expectation in the weekly $650 sat, then play that. I think it's laughable that known cash game pros on Stars (people who never play STTs) would try to play these double shootouts when they could clearly have a higher expectation per hour at the 5/10nl or 10/20nl tables. Why not play those tables and just buyin with W$?

On the other hand, if you feel your best hourly expectation within your risk tolerance is at satellite tables, why not play them full time? If that payout structure is agreeable to you, why stop playing them after you win once?

Just had to get that off my chest... although it seems like a basic concept, a lot of people ignore it.

[TomHimself]

vn post n82, very interesting.
thanks zee for letting this be posted and again congrats

[DeuceKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
i wish i had a 888% ROI [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Lately I'd settle for 88%

[Skjonne]

When is this info gonna be available on your site, N? Your post got me kind of curious of what my own stats look like.

(I know I'm a decent winner $-wise but as you've showed, there's a lot more to it than that)