from bad to horrible

dfscott · #1 03-06-2005, 06:17 PM

I held off posting anything for a while, but I can't hold off anymore -- I don't think I have any idea how to play these things. I've played 150 11s, and while my ITM has held steady at around 40-45, my ROI has gone steadily down. It started around 25%, and now it's down to 7%. I'm at a loss at what to do. I've been trying to use Aleo's "Beating the Party 10+1", but either I'm misunderstanding it, or I'm just really, really unlucky.

I know most people will say "post some hands," but I don't have any idea what hands to post. I'm only playing 5 or 6 hands per tourney, and they don't seem particularly remarkable. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but that's just poker. I think the problem is more in the hands that I don't play, but without posting every hand I folded, I'm not sure how to get a check on that.

As far as "education," I've read HOH, but I think I actually got a little too loose after reading that, so I went back to strict 2+2 strategy. Most people said that there's not many books that might help, but someone suggested watching the 200s to see how they play, so maybe I will try that. But it seems like so many pots are won without a showdown, it would be hard to see what hands people are chosing to play.

I guess this is a cry for help. If most people's advice is "play 500 and then tell me if you're still losing," then that would be good news and I'll be glad to go back in my cave and quit whining. But I know that even over this small of a sample, these results are atypical. Do numbers like these likely indicate a gaping hole in my game, and if so, how should I go about finding and fixing it?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Voltron87 · #2 03-06-2005, 06:29 PM

So you have a 7% ROI for 150 SNGs and you're worried?

"Bad, horrible", "or I'm just really, really unlucky".

Wait until you start losing money to proclaim how bad your streak is. And wait a bit longer.

dfscott · #3 03-06-2005, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you have a 7% ROI for 150 SNGs and you're worried?

"Bad, horrible", "or I'm just really, really unlucky".

Wait until you start losing money to proclaim how bad your streak is. And wait a bit longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand the stats exactly, but I thought you needed to post a 9% ROI in order to beat the rake?

lorinda · #4 03-06-2005, 06:39 PM

You've been playing SNGs for VERY little time and you're winning 16% above the rake.

The first thing you need to do is realise just how good this is.

I'll get around to being more constructive later, but when you hear of people who are getting 35% ROI and the suchlike, many of those people have been brought up on this style of poker for years.

You are now being paid to learn.

Lori

lorinda · #5 03-06-2005, 06:40 PM

Maybe I don't understand the stats exactly, but I thought you needed to post a 9% ROI in order to beat the rake?

The rake should be included in most stats packages.

Do you have more money than you started with? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Lori

dfscott · #6 03-06-2005, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I don't understand the stats exactly, but I thought you needed to post a 9% ROI in order to beat the rake?

The rake should be included in most stats packages.

Do you have more money than you started with? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Doh! When stated that way, it certainly seems obvious. Yes, I have about 10% more than what I started with.

I'm not sure where I got that 9% figure from. You'd never guess that I was a math minor in college.

dfscott · #7 03-06-2005, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You've been playing SNGs for VERY little time and you're winning 16% above the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand this math.. can you elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]

The first thing you need to do is realise just how good this is.

I'll get around to being more constructive later, but when you hear of people who are getting 35% ROI and the suchlike, many of those people have been brought up on this style of poker for years.

You are now being paid to learn.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, and you make an excellent point. I'll go back to my studies now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The Yugoslavian · #8 03-06-2005, 06:48 PM

Meh. I don't see what your beef is.

You're winning. Your ITM is very nice. You haven't played enough STTs to even have signficiant stats to begin with.

So, good job! Keep up the good work....

Yugoslav
PS You better hope Citanul is still his temporarily reformed self when he reads this! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

lorinda · #9 03-06-2005, 06:49 PM

I'm not sure where I got that 9% figure from.

That's the rake, but you are accounting for that in the $11 entry instead of $10 entry.

If you were booking entry fees as $10 , then you would need a 9% ROI to be level.

Edit:

I don't think I understand this math.. can you elaborate?

Sure. You pay 9% rake, which you've won back, and you've made 7% on top of that.
If the game was fair, you'd be winning 16% [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Lori

dfscott · #10 03-06-2005, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where I got that 9% figure from.

That's the rake, but you are accounting for that in the $11 entry instead of $10 entry.

If you were booking entry fees as $10 , then you would need a 9% ROI to be level.

Edit:

I don't think I understand this math.. can you elaborate?

Sure. You pay 9% rake, which you've won back, and you've made 7% on top of that.
If the game was fair, you'd be winning 16% [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah -- got it.