Party Super Musings

[shaniac]

If you played the Party "Super" Weekday tournaments 4 times a week, 50 weeks out of the year, you'd need to win one (or an equivalent amount in smaller cashes) just to break even.

Discuss.

[scott8]

This is why its so important to keep accurate records of your tournament play IMO.

A lot of players can win in the cash games and don't realize what a major leak MTT play is for them.

This is also why ITM% is not as useless a stat as some would like you to believe.

This is why it takes ridiculous patience and a really high bankroll to be a true pro MTT player. The variance is extremely high.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of players can win in the cash games and don't realize what a major leak MTT play is for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, I have always thought it was the other way around.

[locutus2002]

The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.

Hence returns, especially large ones, are likely to be a poor metric for gauging the quality/improvement of your game. The critical skill to improving as a player is based on self-perspicacity, and discipled review and analysis of HH. Skills which many of us develop for the first time in college. (Endogenous change)

It is also unlikely that the inevitable changing of the composition of a tournament over time (weaker to stronger, etc) would be reflected in ROI. (Exogenous change)

[Benal]

Sats are a good way to offset the cost of playing these regularly. I'm quite confident that for the cost of 4 direct buyins ($648), I could win at least twice that number of entries via sats.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of players can win in the cash games and don't realize what a major leak MTT play is for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, I have always thought it was the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody up for some TD lowball?

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
Sats are a good way to offset the cost of playing these regularly. I'm quite confident that for the cost of 4 direct buyins ($648), I could win at least twice that number of entries via sats.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

its as if i said "oh i could go to a 200 NL ring game and double my buy-in, thats a 200+15 right there"

[illegit]

Fairly obvious.

200 tournaments
1 cash
1 win
1 final table
-----------
ROI: 0%

At first glance that's approximately exactly what one would expect with those awfully bad-mediocre results, correct?

[woodguy]

Assuming you are paying full price.

I know that you should count winning a SnG sat as "paying" $162 as you won $162 in the sat, but on average I would say that many players here pay on average "out of bankroll" less than $80/entry via the SnG sats.

All that being said, you make a good point, and it reinforces the idea that you must play to finish deep and not "survive".

Get 3 Final Table finishes and you're freerolling that tourney the rest of the year. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Regards,
Woodguy