Riddle me this...

So I'm told that the $22s are just as easy as the $11s and that anybody with a winning record at the $11s could have a winning record at the $22s, and I'm just throwing money away by not moving up. So my question is...what gives?



Sample too small? I don't like hearing this response because it means that if I get a bigger one my ROI will magically shoot up. I don't want to keep throwing my money away.

The one difference I notice between the two is that I'm rarely over 900 chips by level 4 at the $22s. This happens almost once a set (of 4) at the $11s if not twice. Because of this I'm forced into the push/fold mode sooner which is the reason for my unusally large 5-8th placement. My ITM is also much lower (obviously) at the $22s.



Sigh, I guess this is sort of a bad beat post. But I'm just a little frustrated with the people on these forums saying that the $55s and lower are a total cakewalk and anyone with half-a-brain could beat them.

Bleh, flame away.

[splashpot]

I don't know what to tell you. I play the exact same way at both levels. Sure, they might be a slightly tougher. Emphasis on slightly. I wouldn't be surprised to see your ROI go down to maybe 20% or even 15%, but that would be pretty extreme. For someone who who has 25% over that many games, you should find these to be a breeze as well.

[Shillx]

The p-value on $11 ROI not= $22 ROI is .007 if you use an SD of 1.6 buy-ins. It would be pretty tough to blame varience for the the difference in results. So now you have to determine if the players are better or if your play has fallen down some. There is always some chance (about 140:1) that you were running very well and are now running very bad, but you look to be better off evaluating your game and sticking to the $11's.

Edited to say that this doesn't mean that your true ROI is -4% or whatever. It just means that either the 22's are harder then the 11's or your play has changed a significant amount.

[mlagoo]

its always hard to tell much from these graphs, but it certainly looks like you could use more 4ths which would hopefully lead to more 1sts. ie, amp up the bubble aggression. is there any sort of mental thing (slightly higher stakes) that is making you play a bit more passive in the 22s?

[bigt439]

BOO this post. You know your sample size is too small; you said this. What more do you want?

[psyduck]

I can't believe you waited till you won $4000 at the 10+1s before moving up.

WTF? You already have the bankroll for the 55s, and some would say you should be taking shots at the 109s.

[Freudian]

I'm below 10% firsts in December over 300 games or so at 39% ITM. I just can't buy a 1st no matter how big favourite I am when the other guy is all-in. I'm not going to make any dramatic changes because of panic. If it still is the same after 1000 SnGs perhaps I'll have a peak.

[KingDan]

My shot in the dark is that you ran a little good at the 11s and a little bad at the 22s.

[jeffraider]

Your sample size for the $11s is small too, btw. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
The one difference I notice between the two is that I'm rarely over 900 chips by level 4 at the $22s. This happens almost once a set (of 4) at the $11s if not twice. Because of this I'm forced into the push/fold mode sooner which is the reason for my unusally large 5-8th placement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you meant to say was, "my problem seems to be that I'm panicking too early and raising garbage in EP and running into big hands a lot".

Edit: this is very common for people playing stakes that they are not psychologically comfortable to be playing at.