Question about SNGs and fluctuation

Chaostracize · #1 08-27-2005, 01:23 AM

I have a friend who is a very good SNG player. I say this after having talked about numerous hands with him and seen him play. He is currently playing the 215s.

I was just informed that over 5,000 SNGs he has an ROI of 6%. I think before any conclusions can be made regarding skill that more the person in question should play more SNGs, but he disagrees stating that the 6% is an accurate represntation of his skill and he just isn't good enough to be playing at the level he's been playing at for months.

Is there a satisfactory conclusion that anyone can come to?

I know this really comes down to a simple variance and bell curve post, but I think that this player has simply been getting unlucky and over the course of another 1-5k games his ROI should be easily around 15%.

Thoughts?

pearljam · #2 08-27-2005, 01:24 AM

6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

citanul · #3 08-27-2005, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

response 1 for this thread:

no, it's not.

it's making an ok amount of money, it's not even close to "very good"

citanul

Chaostracize · #4 08-27-2005, 01:31 AM

That, both player in question and I, agree with.

pearljam · #5 08-27-2005, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

response 1 for this thread:

no, it's not.

it's making an ok amount of money, it's not even close to "very good"

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

But I read in the FAQ that 6% was the highest a good player could sustain over a long period of time in the 200+15s.

Myst · #6 08-27-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not. It really is not. The variance alone would make any sane man want to jump out the window.

But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

citanul · #7 08-27-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't read any literature/empirical work on BJ, and am actually looking to do so. have you got any to recommend? i have this feeling in the back of my head that because good blackjack play involves putting more money out when you believe yourself to be at an advantage, the swings aren't that terrible (though they clearly exist).

also wondering if anyone knows the edges for the scenarios:

1) playing perfect blackjack w.r.t. counting without varying your bets

2) playing basic strategy, no counting, with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

3) playing perfect counting strategy with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

if anyone has any reference to that that'd be great.

haha, i'm wrong forum / hijack man.

citanul

jon462 · #8 08-27-2005, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't read any literature/empirical work on BJ, and am actually looking to do so. have you got any to recommend? i have this feeling in the back of my head that because good blackjack play involves putting more money out when you believe yourself to be at an advantage, the swings aren't that terrible (though they clearly exist).

also wondering if anyone knows the edges for the scenarios:

1) playing perfect blackjack w.r.t. counting without varying your bets

2) playing basic strategy, no counting, with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

3) playing perfect counting strategy with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

if anyone has any reference to that that'd be great.

haha, i'm wrong forum / hijack man.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

good sng strategy also involves putting your chips out there when you have an advantage, why do you think there would be less variance with blackjack?

To answer your question, house edge is 2% on #2 (you cant beat BJ w/o counting), and I imagine your edge would be so incredibly small on #1 it wouldnt be worth it.

There's a 2+2 book on blackjack, its designed to be simple enough to be practical to non-rainmen.. but DS does recommend some books with more complicated strategies..

citanul · #9 08-27-2005, 02:16 AM

ty.

i own, and have on my desk, sklansky on bj, but hte light is off, and i don't think he answers the exact question i asked.

i didn't mean to compare the variance of bj to that of sngs, just to what some may perceive the variance in bj to be.

/hijack

citanul

Mr_J · #10 08-27-2005, 02:19 AM

"To answer your question, house edge is 2% on #2"

No it's not. Basic strategy usually get you down to 0.5% or less (depends on rules).

"you cant beat BJ w/o counting"

There are some games that are beatable with perfect basic strategy, but these games are rare.

"There's a 2+2 book on blackjack, its designed to be simple enough to be practical to non-rainmen.."

Card counting isn't hard at all. Just takes practice. BJ21.com