ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation in a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, same field size (for the sake of controls on the argument assume field size is constant), that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm pretty sure this is not true. if you're playing to qualify for a larger, $2500 tourney, then your variance in that MTT is going to be way larger, b/c the variance in the $2500 event is enormous. Maybe on average you only spend $12-1500 in sats to qualify, but then a $12-1500 tourney would probably be above your BR (if you're a $250 MTT player)

The only way it reduces variance is if you had the BR ,and were planning on probably buying in anyways (or at least considering buying in). then playing the sats would of course be lower variance than buying directly into the big event.

The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

Could you calculate the standard deviation of his winnings/tournamennt please? You acknowledged that the sample size was small, but it's really really important to note just how small the sample size is.

Also, 200% ROI's really good.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, you mean in earth years?

there are actually 3 in 2005.

[ansky451]

Indeed, that 100 rebuy counts too.

[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.

[Blindcurve]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this example. RPGers represent.

As for MTT ROI%, I sort of thought the entire idea of playing these tournaments was to essentially break even until your big score. I always thought there were a lot of winning MTTers here simply because their cashes tended to be larger than the sum of their buy-ins. I'm starting to think this is more rare than I realized.

Clearly, because of the time it takes to accumulate a significant sample size, where you are in this buy-in/cash cycle has little bearing on how good you are as a player- other than how your perception of your progress affects your game.

I'd imagine the better you are, the less this perception affects you.