Positive EV = 2 x's buy-in - Page 2

#11 11-08-2005, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if you make the money that much then you'd have to be like the best player ever, and you'd have to be playing improperly around bubble time trying to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definately not saying I'm a great tournament player... and I understand the significance of stealing pots around the bubble...

However, on the flip-side, if I have a healthy stack when the bubble is about to pop... I'm not going to risk a ton of chips just so I can pick up a pot or two.

In addition... I have found that once the bubble burst, the players go crazy (especially on Party Poker). I have moved up 4 to 5 payout spots just by being patient after the bubble pops.

pfkaok · #12 11-08-2005, 07:42 PM

well. i'm not talking about your skill, since i know very llitle about your play. i'm just saying taht making the money that much is not possible. you have no doubt been running well in your small sample size. even if you feel like you've just been running normal, there is so much hidden luck in those things that you can never really tell how good you're running. which is of course why you can never know your "true" ROI with tons of accuracy.

#13 11-08-2005, 07:47 PM

I concur...

I'm just thinking there has to be a way to justify playing extended winning and/or loosing streaks.

I have some friends that are closely tied to some big time players... and I've heard of 15-20 $10,000 buy-in tournaments with no cashes.

How do these players justify continued play?

pfkaok · #14 11-08-2005, 07:56 PM

well. i've only been playing lots of MTTs for a few months, and i've already had a few streaks in the 20's and 1 in the 30's of noncashes. its pretty simple. if you make the money 15% of the time, then 85% you won't.

going 20 in a row is going to happen (.85)^20 = 4%

its not common, but if you expect to play tons of MTTs you have to expect it to happen from time to time. even if you do have tons of EV in them. but the fact is, that losing 20 10k buyins in a row is a ton of money, and probably why most tourney pros take shares of each other. sufficient BR for those is enormous.

#15 11-08-2005, 08:09 PM

since you seem to be well versed at MTT... can I pick your brain a bit?

1st) Do you feel that a 2000+ entrant small buy-in tournaments (>$10) are more profitable than say 200 person $100 tournaments? I would think the overlay in these small tournaments are just to juicy to pass-up.

2) How much better is the skill level as you move up in stakes?

flyingmoose · #16 11-08-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just thinking there has to be a way to justify playing extended winning and/or loosing streaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has a lot to do with luck. I was fortunate enough to have a big windfall before my worst downswing, so the money lost didn't really affect me. If I had started with a huge downswing, I might not be playing MTTs right now.

pfkaok · #17 11-08-2005, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1st) Do you feel that a 2000+ entrant small buy-in tournaments (>$10) are more profitable than say 200 person $100 tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. this is certainly not true. if yo'ure a good player, then yeah, you'll have more EV in a larger tourney, but when the buyin is the same. its very hard to quantify just how much, but its clear that the better players will benifit from a larger prize pool and more dead money. a good way to show this is if you look at STTs, with a flatter structure, and less people. no way anyone could get a 100% ROI in a STT. but of course there is less variance, and you don't need nearly as many buyins in your BR.

pfkaok · #18 11-08-2005, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It has a lot to do with luck. I was fortunate enough to have a big windfall before my worst downswing, so the money lost didn't really affect me. If I had started with a huge downswing, I might not be playing MTTs right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. there is a lot of luck envolved in terms of how well you start. esp in the big buyin events, where most of the field is underrolled. getting a lucky score early can be huge.

besides luck though, although its kind of obvious, it still shouldn't be overlooked just how important it is to be VERY good, and not just a slightly winning player. in 10k buyin events, a truly great player with a 2-300 ROI will need a bankroll nowhere near what a 50% ROI guy would need. dropping 50 buyins will be VERY rare for a great player, but a merely good player will probably have them several times in their career if they played MTTs alot. of course not very many people have the potential to be world class, but probably a lot can be VERY good if they really, really wanted to. unfortunately, not many truly want to enough to put in the time and effort required. well, i guess acually its fortunate for those who do.

limon · #19 11-10-2005, 02:10 PM

it was posted either on phillip's or negreanus blog. it assumes you're in the top 25% of the field (better than 50% of the winning players) it probably is made up BS but its the best ive heard.

#20 11-10-2005, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a lot of people use the rule of thumb... if you are better than 50% of the field...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Everyone in the tournament could be losing the rake, whereas you're losing the rake minus 1 cent. Your EV isn't determined by how many people you're better than, but the difference in skill between you and every other player in the tourny.