A post to put all of your results in to perspective...

[WarDekar]

I don't know about you, but I think my own personal level of play varies from day to day, mood to mood. If I'm emotionally distraught and hit a cooler, I'm likely to start playing worse. If I'm in a better mood, I'm certainly more likely to concentrate. I definitely believe that some of my worst downswings have been directly related to tilting, whether I was willing to admit it at the time or not.

It's tough for someone to say that they were tilting, or playing worse than normal, but that's our nature.

I do agree though that we really have no better estimate, I'm merely stating that we don't always play at one constant level.

[The Don]

After 1350 you have a damn good sense of where you're at. You COULD be running bad but it is far more likely that there are some big leaks which prevent you from being in the 20% range. I am 22.5% after 1600 $22s in the past 3 months and I'm sure I have played with you a bit over that time period. I try to keep mini bios on other known 8 tablers at the $22s and $33s (primarily noting any leaks I see). PM me with your party nicks and I will let you know if there is anything I have noticed.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but I think my own personal level of play varies from day to day, mood to mood. If I'm emotionally distraught and hit a cooler, I'm likely to start playing worse. If I'm in a better mood, I'm certainly more likely to concentrate. I definitely believe that some of my worst downswings have been directly related to tilting, whether I was willing to admit it at the time or not.

It's tough for someone to say that they were tilting, or playing worse than normal, but that's our nature.

I do agree though that we really have no better estimate, I'm merely stating that we don't always play at one constant level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily matter if you play at one level for the estimate to be accurate. What matters is how fast the variation is in relation to the sampling time. If it's a day-long thing, it won't matter. If it's a month long thing, it might.

So we're agreeing in principle, I just think you may be over-estimating a little the degree to which this kind of thing erodes the value of the estimate.

I certainly don't mean 3% as in not 2.9% and not 3.1%. A factor of two in either direction isn't going to give me cause to throw out the method.

eastbay

[45suited]

Just a general comment, please correct me if I'm wrong:

It seems that there is a bias on this forum towards not accepting good results, even when they cover 1000+ games, but at the same time poor results are so often glossed over as just variance or bad luck.

I understand that even 1000+ games is still relatively small in the big picture, but it still starts to give a general idea in most cases as to the level of your play. Short of having an expert player review your HHs, that's pretty much all you have to rely on.

Don't get me wrong. There's no shame whatsoever if Mr J is a 12% ROI performer at the 22s. But in the absence of other evidence, it seems silly to say that his first 1000 games represented his "true" ROI while the last 900 were an abberation.

I don't pretend to be a mathematician, but Eastbay's 3% estimate seems reasonable. And I do agree with Irie that 3% is not an incredibly small number, but we see SO MANY of these "running bad" threads that at a certain point, I think that people are doing themselves a disservice if they continually chalk up results that they are not happy with to a run of poor luck.

That's all from me... now back to the smart guys. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[raptor517]

just so everyone knows.. in the 55s, i track in sets of 750. over 750, ive had a 2% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a .3% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a 27% roi in the 55s. over 750 i have had a 29.5% roi in the 55s. variance is fun. takes a while to iron it out. keep grindin. holla

[Mr_J]

"There's no shame whatsoever if Mr J is a 12% ROI performer at the 22s"

Yes there is!!!!

"I understand that even 1000+ games is still relatively small in the big picture, but it still starts to give a general idea in most cases as to the level of your play."

I agree. There are a few reasons that I believe I'm better than 12% though:

1. expert player review your HHs = Irie

2. I seem to understand sng theory better than most lower limits players here (obviously IMO), and feel more on par with the better $33ers and the $55ers. Remember that while I haven't played as many sngs, I have read this forum (HHs, theory posts etc) for as long as many of those players.

3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

Ok, we know there's a 3% chance that a 20% player will run at 12% after 1300 sngs. What is the chance a 12% player will run 21% over his first 1000 sngs? Any sample we take is really just a slice of the pie. To really have an idea of where I'm at (if we only look at results), then I'll need to play a few thousand more $22s.

"It seems that there is a bias on this forum towards not accepting good results, even when they cover 1000+ games, but at the same time poor results are so often glossed over as just variance or bad luck."

I agree with the first part. Now if we prefer samples larger than 1k for a good ROI, why is 1300 enough for a bad one? Obiously it isn't. If the forum isn't happy with a 1k good run, then they shouldn't be happy with a 1k bad run. Poor results obviously aren't glossed over as bad luck, or else I wouldn't have responded to half these posts [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mr_J]

I think the reason your results would be more acceptable (ie put down to variance) is that your overall sample is much larger. It UNLIKELY that someone will run as poorly as I have early on, where as it's inevitable if you play as many as you have.

Then of course there's the fact that you have 5500 sngs at 18% at the $55s alone...but your samples do show how annoying variance can be. I'll give an update after another 1500 sngs (a month) or if my ROI climbs back up to over 20% (it might lol).

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
3. An ROI right after a 42 buyin drop will not be that accurate, even if you have played 1000 sngs. After 1000 sngs, a 20% player will have made 200 buyins. If he then proceeds to go on a 40 buyin drop over 200 sngs, his new ROI is 13%. This doesn't mean he's a 13% player, he might be a 20% player who has just hit a bad run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is me at 1:40 am and really quite not all here right now and all, but the above seems like really, really, really, really, bad statistics. This should, I think, be INCREDIBLY obvious. And, you should, I think, be entirely ashamed for having written something like that.

citanul

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
we know there's a 3% chance that a 20% player will run at 12% after 1300 sngs. What is the chance a 12% player will run 21% over his first 1000 sngs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you asked. 2%. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If you're really 16%, then youre 15% to run hot at 21% and and 17% to run cold at 12%. Are we having fun yet?

eastbay

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason your results would be more acceptable (ie put down to variance) is that your overall sample is much larger. It UNLIKELY that someone will run as poorly as I have early on, where as it's inevitable if you play as many as you have.

Then of course there's the fact that you have 5500 sngs at 18% at the $55s alone...but your samples do show how annoying variance can be. I'll give an update after another 1500 sngs (a month) or if my ROI climbs back up to over 20% (it might lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

as an aside.. not ONE of my sets of 750 has been within 3% of my ACTUAL roi. its usually around 10 or around 22+. thats how it works for some stupid rigged reason. holla