Hypothetical Question

Theoretically the anwser is yes.

In reality the anwser is no.

[ClaytonN]

Hopefully the 2+2 reader has already established that point, but thanks for pointing that out.

If I had to guess, the usefullness of the additional 50 chips probably follows an S-curve trend.

By the same token, you could say that the aid in ROI also depends on the level. IE 50 chips may help more in 55's than 215's.

[Voltron87]

.2-.3%

i think people are forgetting that when you double up its like have 90 chips.


edit- .2-.3 instead of .2-.4

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically the anwser is yes.

In reality the anwser is no.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so dumb, no offense.

If you played 1 million SNG's starting with 1000 chips, and then 1 million SNG's starting with 1045, the 1 million with 1045 chips would have a higher ROI, WITHOUT QUESTION. The mathematical and theoretical answer must be recognized, because you need to approach your winnings long term.

This is like me giving you 10 quarters and a dime every day for 20 years. If you threw away that dime every day, thinking "I don't need it, it's only a dime, in the real world this is nothing", but 20 years later accounts for a shatloud of dimes.

[curtains]

Well it definitely means something, the question is how much does it mean. I really don't know the answer, but Im curious what people think.

[Daliman]

You would have essentially 5% more chips than your opponents, therefore, your roi would go approximately 5% higher(or lower, if negative).

Oops, not lower, duh. But 5 % better. I'll explain here; I knda already did in response to nick B.

Usually, you think only in terms of multiplying vs the ROI, but that doesn't work here. A player with a 0% ROI + 5% isn;t going to cancel out because he is at 0%; it will be almost an exact 5% roi jump, because each time he buys in for 215, he averages getting 215 back, thus the 0% roi. Give him a 5% edge in chips, and he wins 5% more than he did before, which would be 226.75,(using straight percentages; obviously it should be a bit higher, as he is getting more than his "fair share" even at 0% ROI.)

FWIW, the actual ICM difference is approximately 4.6%

Easy one.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
You would have essentially 5% more chips than your opponents, therefore, your roi would go approximately 5% higher(or lower, if negative).

Easy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That answer must completely wrong Dali. Ok actually I have no idea.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If all your opponents started the tournament with 995 and you began with 1045, how many points would you expect your ROI to go up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that varies greatly by how good the player is. For a breakeven player it probably won't matter, but for somebody with a 20% ROI it would probably be much more significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. A breakeven player is winning $215 per tourney. Improving his earn by 5% means he is now winning about $10.75 more per tourney. A 20% roi player will be making about $255 per tourney, and 5% more would be 12.75 more, so only about a $2 difference between them.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
You would have essentially 5% more chips than your opponents, therefore, your roi would go approximately 5% higher(or lower, if negative).

Easy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my initial thought before I remembered that the extra 50 chips is only .5% of the total pool of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
If you played 1 million SNG's starting with 1000 chips, and then 1 million SNG's starting with 1045, the 1 million with 1045 chips would have a higher ROI, WITHOUT QUESTION. The mathematical and theoretical answer must be recognized, because you need to approach your winnings long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have already pointed out, we could sit here and argue the mathematical stand point of this for days. There is no doubt that there is an edge, but the size of this edge is the question.

Sure, over one million sngs, even a slight edge will show up as a big edge. There is no doubt you have a small edge in this situation over a LARGE sample size such as 1 million games, but when I first read this post I was under the assumption that he meant a single game, in which case there is a small, but close to no increase in ROI.