|
|
#133
08-13-2005, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Crapola On Tap
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're a pro multi-tabling full time it maight take 10 years to get enough games under your belt to be able to say that you are a very good player. Yet virtually noone has played that long because internet SnG's haven't been around (or at least played by very many people) for long enough. So -- if you're not a full-time multi-tabler, you might never really know if you're any good. And, those pros you hear about all the time, have a fair chance of not being nearly as good as is generally accepted. Yet, people on the forum often take as gospel things put forward people because viewed as "long term winners." [/ QUOTE ] This is the statistical equivalent... Of constantly warning people... That they could be hit by an asteroid in the next 10 minutes. What would motivate someone to push this stuff? Why does it make him feel better? rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] 
|
|
#134
08-13-2005, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crapola On Tap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless you're a pro multi-tabling full time it maight take 10 years to get enough games under your belt to be able to say that you are a very good player. Yet virtually noone has played that long because internet SnG's haven't been around (or at least played by very many people) for long enough. So -- if you're not a full-time multi-tabler, you might never really know if you're any good. And, those pros you hear about all the time, have a fair chance of not being nearly as good as is generally accepted. Yet, people on the forum often take as gospel things put forward people because viewed as "long term winners." [/ QUOTE ] This is the statistical equivalent... Of constantly warning people... That they could be hit by an asteroid in the next 10 minutes. What would motivate someone to push this stuff? Why does it make him feel better? rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Amen to that, couldnt have said it better myself. Furthermore, do we play these games with our eyes shut and open them up to find out how we did at the end? There are theories about what works that are grounded in probability. If my friend designed a program and refused to tell me what it did then maybe id need 10 years multitabling to test it and be sure it worked. In the real world let me play 50 games and post tons of hands and Ill know exactly where I stand. Successful people in aggregate play tons of games and there is huge consensus on how to beat low buy in games. Not only is there consensus on correct plays argumentation can be provided for them. Is whether or not we have a mathematical edge based on theory and experienced advice, or have been lucky to all this time with incorrect plays that in aggregate would be equivalent in probability to winning the lottery supposed to be a serious question? This might sound like a rant but I think misusing statistics like this is a terrific way to cause an experianced player to doubt himself every time he takes an inevitable downswing, plus I think its illogical.
|
|
#136
08-14-2005, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crapola On Tap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless you're a pro multi-tabling full time it maight take 10 years to get enough games under your belt to be able to say that you are a very good player. Yet virtually noone has played that long because internet SnG's haven't been around (or at least played by very many people) for long enough. So -- if you're not a full-time multi-tabler, you might never really know if you're any good. And, those pros you hear about all the time, have a fair chance of not being nearly as good as is generally accepted. Yet, people on the forum often take as gospel things put forward people because viewed as "long term winners." [/ QUOTE ] This is the statistical equivalent... Of constantly warning people... That they could be hit by an asteroid in the next 10 minutes. What would motivate someone to push this stuff? Why does it make him feel better? rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Again you don't know what you're talking about. This is the exact opposite. Many people think they are excellent poker players because they have "won a lot". In effect saying they will be hit by an asteroid. Irie is saying for most people, even those that think they've looked through the telescope and seen the asteroid bearing down on them, it isn't true.
|
|
#137
08-14-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mea Culpa From RedManPlus
OK...
Since stirring up this controversy... I've gone back to my freshman stats... Taken the last 20 SNGs from 5 different Leaderboard players... And done a "quick and dirty" SNG variance analysis... ** Specifically ONLY for guys doing about 20% SNG ROI **. (I'm not interested in any other group).  So 100 games is worthless... Even 500 is the bare threshold for evaluating long-term performance... But 1000 is more realistic... Giving you a ROI +/- 10% range. For a true 20% ROI SNG player... To lose money over 1000 tournies or roughly one month... Is 4 SD away from the mean... You know... asteroid territory. On the other hand... This is all very dire stuff for marginal players... Like a zero to 5% ROI player. The level of variance while quite manageable for a Leaderboard guy... Pretty much what you would encounter in any business... Is a level that cannot be sustained by a marginal player. Basically... Leaderboard guys no problem... Marginal players... You should get the hell out and do something else. AliasMrJones is more or less right... But only in terms of marginal players... Which is about 90% of the posters at 2+2. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#138
08-14-2005, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mea Culpa From RedManPlus
OK, so you're saying that all but 20 people in the world should stop playing STT's?
And, even at 2,000 STT's, your leaderboard guy is +/- 8 percentage points of ROI. So, your 20% guy may actually be a 12% guy. Do you think people in the forum would pay more attention to what a 20% ROI guy says than a 12% ROI guy? Now are you starting to get the point? How many WPT-type pros do you think play 2,000 tournaments a year? The STT forum guys have run the simulations over very long periods of time and looked at all the 100 game and 1,000 game intervals. For a 15% ROI player, which is a very good ROI at the real money STT's ($11 STT's don't really count), >30 buy-in drops are entirely within the realm of possibility. Yes, they will most likely be back to even after a couple of hundred STT's, that but doesn't mean the 30 buy-in drop didn't happen. You keep talking about these "marginal" players. Do you put ZeeJustin in the "marginal" category? Irie? Giga? Look STT's are my bread and butter. There are reasons why I play the STT"s and low variance compared to limit ring games and MTT's is definitely among them. But, you're basically saying that there are players who don't experience the not insignificant variance that IS there in STT's and you're just plain wrong.
|
|
#139
08-14-2005, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mea Culpa From RedManPlus
what? the possible 'marginality' of a player is figured after the fact of 'varience' is assumed (a hypothesis, so to speak). i can't read irie any other way.......but i am usually 'wrong'..............irie?????.............h
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
