would you rather get 3rd or 10th

[citanul]

i'm pretty sure that saccing the money in hopes of starting another tournament that you hope to finish higher than 3rd in is pretty silly, hourly rate wise. i mean, where do you draw the line? is 2nd good enough? a 2nd is only 2x as good as a 3rd...

but seriously, to do this more analytically would be pretty simple, but intuitively the answer should be (for any sane distribution of a winning player) clear.

my original question was because i think it's likely that many players who are slight winning players (maybe even those who are more than slight winning players) would become losing players ROI wise if they gave up all their 3rds for 10ths. if you have a -ROI, you can't have a +Hourly rate.

citanul

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously 10th ... can get another tourney started and get a lot more rakeback that way.

Think about all that rakeback if you could just get back-to-back-to-back 10ths all night.

[/ QUOTE ]

arent you a fuking comedian

[/ QUOTE ]

ha ha ha ha

you will last long here

[AceofSpades]

are you serious?

[cleinen]

[ QUOTE ]
my original question was because i think it's likely that many players who are slight winning players (maybe even those who are more than slight winning players) would become losing players ROI wise if they gave up all their 3rds for 10ths. if you have a -ROI, you can't have a +Hourly rate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dead on

[citanul]

no, he's not.

[bluefeet]

100 tourneys
20 1st's - %20 - @ 40min duration
10 2nd's - %10 - @ 40min duration
10 3rd's - %10 - @ 30min duration

10th's - @ 1min duration

IF your 1st and 2nd place finishes were independant of the number of 3rd's, then you could replace 10 3rd's with 10 10th's, netting you 290min -- thus time for 7 more 1st/2nd finishes (in theory). when a 1st is 3x more valuable than a 3rd, an additional 4+ 1sts and 3+ 2nds will earn you more than the original 10 3rd's. [EDIT: DAMMIT!! i suck at math....7 'or so' more tournies, only 2-or-so more 1st's or 2nd's......please disregard. me&my open mind. giant crayon scribbles all about the post...nothing to see here, move along Ps. i hate you.

is that what you're thinking?

of course not knowing during the first shuffle that you are beginning one of your '3rd' games, makes it all quite pointless. but if the poker gods where to ask it a different way....

"i'll trade you all of your 3rd's for 10th's, giving you the extra time to earn more 1st's and 2nd's at your current rate..."

then yes, not so bad (assuming your ITM distribution justifies 'the deal')

-- go back to the tables. you're giving me a headache! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[FlyWf]

That breaks down because you won't 1st or 2nd every "gained" SnG. In your 290 gained minutes you'll play around 12 extra SNGs(increasing buyin from 1100 to 1232 assuming 10 player $10+1s), and at your usual rates you'll snag 2.4 1sts, 1.2 2nds, and 1.2 thirds. I'll give you 3 more firsts and 1 2nd and 1 third cause I'm just that nice.

So you're trading 10 3rds(+90) for 3 firsts(+87), 1 2nd(+19), 1 3rd(+9), and 17 losses(-187). Do the math, and would you rather make $400 or $268 in your day?

And that's a very good player who finishes first over 20% of the time(36% ROI). It would take an unrealistically successful player to accept the deal. (or an unrealistically high rakeback)

[bluefeet]

agreed agreed - read 'suck at math' [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PITTM]

wow, i havent read the sng forum in like a year and i come back and this is the first post i read? sweeeeet jesus. i understand your point, but as another poster said, you cant really choose before hand, making it a moot point, and if you can choose at the beginning i think we would all take third. thanks for the laughs though...

rj

[buddybudrow]

3rd = 82% ROI
10th = -100% ROI

I'll settle for 3rd