|
|
#11
06-18-2005, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
I have kept a spreadsheet of data on my tourneys since I started playing exclusively MTTs in March...I think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) and I will try to extrapolate some data from that and post it here [/ QUOTE ] See, this data means NOTHING!!! Personally, psychologically, it matters, but ONE tourney can completely skew your data (witness: yours truely). Seriously, think about it. If you play nothing but 400-man tournies that cost $100... You'll need to play that tourney some 400,000 times to come close to real ROI. 40,000 might give you a good feel though.... 
|
|
#12
06-18-2005, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have kept a spreadsheet of data on my tourneys since I started playing exclusively MTTs in March...I think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) and I will try to extrapolate some data from that and post it here [/ QUOTE ] See, this data means NOTHING!!! Personally, psychologically, it matters, but ONE tourney can completely skew your data (witness: yours truely). Seriously, think about it. If you play nothing but 400-man tournies that cost $100... You'll need to play that tourney some 400,000 times to come close to real ROI. 40,000 might give you a good feel though.... [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying this is completely accurate, but there is value in some approximation.
|
|
#13
06-18-2005, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
also, my % ITM has remained relatively constant since the first month...I'm not sure how relevant that ends up being in terms of ROI, but it has some value, no?
|
|
#14
06-18-2005, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT.
CSC
|
|
#15
06-18-2005, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT. CSC [/ QUOTE ] I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing.
|
|
#16
06-18-2005, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT. CSC [/ QUOTE ] I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing. [/ QUOTE ] Your stats are insanely good. No one in this forum has better stats than this. Clear evidence of short-term variance.
|
|
#17
06-18-2005, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] OK, %ITM has some relevance, but FT performance is so very important AND I personally know of damn good players who simply don't FT well. While their ITMs put me to shame (not hard to do), they have a hard time converting FTs into wins, precisely because the skills that let them finsih ITM so often, cripple them at the FT. CSC [/ QUOTE ] I have a really hard time specifically taking first in the last three months. My ITM is about 28%, my top five is about 15%, my top three is only about 4% though [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I've only won 1 of my last 150. I've been specifically shoring up my endgame because of this...it's kind of embarrassing. [/ QUOTE ] Your stats are insanely good. No one in this forum has better stats than this. Clear evidence of short-term variance. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I would agree. There's just no [censored] way I'll probably ever FT 7 times in 7 days again.
|
|
#18
06-18-2005, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) [/ QUOTE ] Hmmmm. 150+ is absolutely nothing in terms of sample size for the question asked here. For instance, if you know anything about SNGs (sit-and-gos), where variance is much much much (add a few more of them) lower than on MTTs, 150 games is practically a laughable sample size. Some people are playing these amount of SNGs A DAY. Only when you get to few K of SNGs you start to get an accurate enough picture of your "true" ROI. It doesn't mean that after few hundreds you can't tell whether you're a winning player, but even the best players can run very very cold for few hundreds SNGs and only break even or so. Now MTTS are much much more volatile, that's why 150+ tourneys sample is, no offence, ridiculous, if you want to come to any meaningful conclusions about your ROI, or ROI in general. Edit: and that's why it's a very tough question.
|
|
#19
06-18-2005, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your maximum expectation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] think I have a reasonable data set now (150+ tourneys) [/ QUOTE ] Hmmmm. 150+ is absolutely nothing in terms of sample size for the question asked here. For instance, if you know anything about SNGs (sit-and-gos), where variance is much much much (add a few more of them) lower than on MTTs, 150 games is practically a laughable sample size. Some people are playing these amount of SNGs A DAY. Only when you get to few K of SNGs you start to get an accurate enough picture of your "true" ROI. It doesn't mean that after few hundreds you can't tell whether you're a winning player, but even the best players can run very very cold for few hundreds SNGs and only break even or so. Now MTTS are much much more volatile, that's why 150+ tourneys sample is, no offence, ridiculous, if you want to come to any meaningful conclusions about your ROI, or ROI in general. Edit: and that's why it's a very tough question. [/ QUOTE ] Well, what number do you think would be a valid sample size? 150 STTs a day? Ten-tabling for 14 hours a day? That seems to be a bit beyond reasonable limits...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
