Riddle me this...

[The Yugoslavian]

Greke,

You still have an account? I just assumed you got banned somehow.


Huh....go figure.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Yugoslav

[SlackerMcFly]

Math baffles me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Good to see Greekie back in the Haus!

could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[/ QUOTE ]
Proving your ROI at the 11s is not something most people care to do. If you wanted to prove it, you're right, it would take thousands of games.

Since the level of difficulty does not differ by a great amount, lots of people just choose to move to the 22s when their bankroll can handle it. If you're winning at a decent rate at the 11s, getting the bankroll for the 22s will take far fewer than 1000 games.

[curtains]

Keep at it, you are surely getting somewhat unlucky. Trust me, my friend was in same spot, ,had great ROI at the $11s and was down a little moeny after 300-400 $20s, but was back to like 15 ROI after around 1500.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
Math baffles me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Good to see Greekie back in the Haus!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks guys. You'll see me posting a lot more in about 2-3 weeks. I'll post for a while, then I'll disappear again at around the 3rd week of the term. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[bennies]

You are running bad, keep at it. However, don't expect to get a 20+ roi. Your sample size from the 11's is not that big either, all it says is that you are a winning player and that your true roi is somewhere between 10 and 33 or so.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
could somebody explain something to me?

On this forum it seems to be that everytime someone posts that they've played x number of sng's at one level (for example the op's amount of sng's at the $11 level) people condem him for not moving up already..."what are you waiting for". and then on the flip side, the same people say how every single sample size is way too small to get real results.

So people should move up after beating a certain level after x number of sng's played....but that same number is not a reliable sample size to determine if they are actually beating that level?

I'm confused....

[/ QUOTE ]
Proving your ROI at the 11s is not something most people care to do. If you wanted to prove it, you're right, it would take thousands of games.

Since the level of difficulty does not differ by a great amount, lots of people just choose to move to the 22s when their bankroll can handle it. If you're winning at a decent rate at the 11s, getting the bankroll for the 22s will take far fewer than 1000 games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think splash hit the nail on the head here. When people say "I have X% ROI at a given level" it is usually not their "true" expected ROI. Often times it won't even close to it.

In reality, there's never a way to prove that you're winning at a given level. You basically have two cases.

1) Your sample size is too small
2) Your sample size isn't too small

In case 1, your numbers are obviously unreliable. On the other hand, in the time it takes you to amass a significant sample size both your game and the games you are playing in are evolving, so the number isn't accurate compared to what your new level of success is.

However, given that you post here, know the basics, and are constantly working on your game gives you an increased probability that you're a winning player at whatever level you're playing. So if you're playing and winning, there's a better chance that you're winning because you're playing well. Conversely, if you're losing there's a better chance it's caused by variance.

Of course, you should never assume that a winning/losing streak is due to good play or variance and always strive to improve your game.

[tigerite]

It's only a 10 buyin drop, but your ITM looks very low, that's the main thing you need to be looking at. Of course it's very hard to tell over 200 anyway.

[GtrHtr]

Compare your top 5 finish % between the 11s and the 22s. Go back and review why you think this may be happening. I'd be amazed at your 6-9th finish % at the 22s except your sample size is small, small, small.

What kinda sets do you play in? 4/8/10 continuous, same start time etc. If you were 8 tabling the 11s, I'd 4 table the 22s for a while, maybe 2 table, maybe 1 table until I get a feel for the games.

Can you lend me a few $$?