ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[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.