Question about SNGs and fluctuation

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what you may read here from a number of posters, ROI is not a measure of skill. It's not the litmus test to see if you should move up. It doesn't tell you if you are the Johnny Chan of sngs or if you need to go back to playing the $1/$2 at stars. It also doesn't predict how well you will run or play in the future.

It just tells you what your return on investment is so far. That's all.

[citanul]

while this:

[ QUOTE ]
It just tells you what your return on investment is so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

this:

[ QUOTE ]
That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

is not, because:

[ QUOTE ]
ROI is not a measure of skill

[/ QUOTE ]

is totally either disingenous or just wrong, whichever.

surely you aren't going to argue that over a large sample size a player with greater skill is going to outperform, on a ROI basis, a player with lesser skill. that's just silly. and yes, yours truly does believe that 5k games does verge on large enough sample size to start to know things and yes, i'm sure you're willing to throw out facts about how you could just be learning the first 500 games, but yeah, people can learn to throw out the games from their early career, and things like that.

pick a point at which you think you started playing the way you're playing now, play identically for 5k games, and yes, your ROI is a measure of your skill.

citanul

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
while this:

[ QUOTE ]
It just tells you what your return on investment is so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

this:

[ QUOTE ]
That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

is not, because:

[ QUOTE ]
ROI is not a measure of skill

[/ QUOTE ]

is totally either disingenous or just wrong, whichever.

surely you aren't going to argue that over a large sample size a player with greater skill is going to outperform, on a ROI basis, a player with lesser skill. that's just silly. and yes, yours truly does believe that 5k games does verge on large enough sample size to start to know things and yes, i'm sure you're willing to throw out facts about how you could just be learning the first 500 games, but yeah, people can learn to throw out the games from their early career, and things like that.

pick a point at which you think you started playing the way you're playing now, play identically for 5k games, and yes, your ROI is a measure of your skill.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while this:

[ QUOTE ]
It just tells you what your return on investment is so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

this:

[ QUOTE ]
That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

is not, because:

[ QUOTE ]
ROI is not a measure of skill

[/ QUOTE ]

is totally either disingenous or just wrong, whichever.

surely you aren't going to argue that over a large sample size a player with greater skill is going to outperform, on a ROI basis, a player with lesser skill. that's just silly. and yes, yours truly does believe that 5k games does verge on large enough sample size to start to know things and yes, i'm sure you're willing to throw out facts about how you could just be learning the first 500 games, but yeah, people can learn to throw out the games from their early career, and things like that.

pick a point at which you think you started playing the way you're playing now, play identically for 5k games, and yes, your ROI is a measure of your skill.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah the best romances begin with dissent. myst and citanul sittin in a tree.. holla

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
surely you aren't going to argue that over a large sample size a player with greater skill is going to outperform, on a ROI basis, a player with lesser skill. that's just silly. and yes, yours truly does believe that 5k games does verge on large enough sample size to start to know things and yes, i'm sure you're willing to throw out facts about how you could just be learning the first 500 games, but yeah, people can learn to throw out the games from their early career, and things like that.

pick a point at which you think you started playing the way you're playing now, play identically for 5k games, and yes, your ROI is a measure of your skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a mod, I'm sure you read most threads. Even the repeat ones with the same questions, over and over. Who are the people who typically ask ROI questions? People who have played <1k games and haven't been reading/studying for very long. They will almost never play a meaningful sample size at the same skill level. I would certainly hope not.

I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation between ROI and skill level. I'm just saying that it's just not as strong as people make it out to be, and certainly not strong enough to be considered THE metric of skill.

And I'm not disputing that over a course of 5k games by 2 established players in the same buyin level, the stronger player will very likely have a higher ROI. But as a practical matter, this will rarely happen.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

damnit, now when i change my location next week you'll think it's because i don't hate you.

(btw, how great would it be to hint at changing my location, and then next week just change it to "I hate Messy_Jesse" or "I hate Myst"?)

crap, i clearly need to go to bed.

[raptor517]

playing at 6% will make you go insane. at any level. you could potentially break even over 2k+ sngs right? ugh. /endlife. holla

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a mod, I'm sure you read most threads. Even the repeat ones with the same questions, over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

pfft, there's some movie with "you assume too much" that i can't remember what movie it is, but yeah:

you assume too much.

mostly i just run around all willy nilly and do what i want.

citanul

[citanul]

oh yeah, it's cuz I'M DRUNK ON POWER!

BOW DOWN!!!

citanul

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
i haven't read any literature/empirical work on BJ, and am actually looking to do so. have you got any to recommend?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Theory of blackjack" is the ultimate mathematical treatment of the game.

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).
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really not true. The edges you are pushing in blackjack are very small. It's near impossible to put yourself in a position to have a large edge that is very common in even high stakes poker games. Another factor, is that even professional blackjack players consistently miscalculate or misunderstand their true edge. I dealer dealing 5 more cards (before shuffling) in a 2 deck game can pretty drastically change a counter's edge.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Varies depending on the rules. But note that counting without varying bets can never gain a significant edge. The best you could hope for is about +0.5%. Even to achieve this, you would need to use a counting strategy optimized for strategy adjustment (eg. the popular Hi-Lo method is not good enough, it's optimized to utilize betting variations).

Aside: It's possible to gain a 2% edge in a good game using a decent strategy while varying your bets AND playing strategy (both according to the count).

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There has never been found a betting strategy (without counting) that can gain an edge using just basic strategy plus betting variation.



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

[/ QUOTE ]

About 2% is the best you can hope for. Better edges used to be possible with advanced techniques such as dealer manipulation, dealer hand reading, etc but that is a whole complicated subject that is not really applicable to today's game (ie casino's caught on, and have taken safety measures).

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The following are very good. Also, search around www.bj21.com.

Professional blackjack by wong

Theory of blackjack by griffin

World's greatest blackjack book by humble