Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > Multi-table Tournaments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-13-2005, 02:15 PM
Allinlife Allinlife is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 154
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-13-2005, 02:39 PM
PrayingMantis PrayingMantis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 11,600 km from Vegas
Posts: 489
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:25 PM
gobboboy gobboboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 297
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:45 PM
N 82 50 24 N 82 50 24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:49 PM
ilya ilya is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Party Poker
Posts: 460
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:56 PM
CardSharpCook CardSharpCook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 746
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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.

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:21 PM
N 82 50 24 N 82 50 24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:24 PM
TomHimself TomHimself is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 299
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

vn post n82, very interesting.
thanks zee for letting this be posted and again congrats
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:36 PM
DeuceKicker DeuceKicker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 80
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Lately I'd settle for 88%
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:37 PM
Skjonne Skjonne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 122
Default Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study

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)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.