Party Super Musings

[locutus2002]

I'm going to ask my wife how to do the math for this.

In a super you win a small range of values up to 5 times entry fee, in a super you win a large range of values up to 150+ times entry fee. If it scales its about a million tournaments to get the same level of accuracy.

Of course 1000 tournaments is probably way too many to get a meaningful estimate of ROI on STT given the small fieldsize (10) and small return (5X). Inspite of STT dogma.

[ZeeJustin]

[ 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 ]

Unless he is talking LHE cash game players losing at MTT's, you are right.

Most NL cash game players can win easily at tournaments, while the opposite is not true.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course 1000 tournaments is probably way too many to get a meaningful estimate of ROI on STT given the small fieldsize (10) and small return (5X). Inspite of STT dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

1,000 SNGs will be meaningful, and will almost certainly be enough to tell if you are a winner, but it won't be extremely accurate in terms of roi.

[Pat Southern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

because its basically the same thing as winning a small tournament, and using those winnings to play in a bigger tournament

it would "cost less" for me to win a 50+5 SnG and use my winnings to buy-in to a 200+15

but i still had to win that 50+5 SnG in the first place

do you see what im getting at? its not like you entered the satellite for 30 bucks then immediately got 200 tournament bucks back. you had to play for it, and win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I realize that I basically win $162 when I win a sat, and then I'm spending that $162 when I play a Party Super. I was simply trying demonstrate a different approach to the original post.

Shaniac stated you would need to win a Super just to break even when playing 4 Supers a week for 50 weeks. That's $648 * 50, or $32400. If you ABSOLUTLY had to play these 4 Supers a week, why buyin directly if you can win an entry for an average of $75? $300 * 50 = $15000

Now let's say that 1st place pays an average of $32000. I'm now showing a profit of $17000, vs being break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your profit is then coming from your sats, not the supers.

[locutus2002]

show me the math.

The underlying finishes (1st through 10th) are discreet values that should be IID for a player. They are discreet, but if they were continuous a sample of 30 games would approximate a T distribution with a 90% confidence interval. The discreetness is going to mean more observations for a a similar confidence interval, and ROI is overlayed on outcomes in the tail ends of the distribution. It's going to mean more readings, but no where near 1000.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
show me the math.

The underlying finishes (1st through 10th) are discreet values that should be IID for a player. They are discreet, but if they were continuous a sample of 30 games would approximate a T distribution with a 90% confidence interval. The discreetness is going to mean more observations for a a similar confidence interval, and ROI is overlayed on outcomes in the tail ends of the distribution. It's going to mean more readings, but no where near 1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your math factoring in that you are playing vs a very diverse field of players in terms of skill, and will face around 2,000 unique players in your 1,000 tournaments?

[locutus2002]

No. It assumes that all the random variables are equal.

But you could go about this a different way. If you actually had 1000 finishes in a short span of time (lets say 3 months is short but who knows). You could randomly sample your population and do some sample statistics to see how quickly your sample converges on your population statistics. This of course does not tell you if the population ROI is indicative of your true ROI, just how quickly the sample converges. I think the important variable to look at is what position you finish, not whether you cash or not.

It all makes for some interesting cocktail discussions, and I've heard very large numbers bantered around for STT players, and I suppose the empirical evidence of players should count alot more than the math.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the important variable to look at is what position you finish, not whether you cash or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, finish position is totally irrelevant.

There are only four possible results: +4, +2, +1, -1 (ignoring rake).

It takes a very long time for such a data series to converge. 5000 is a start for estimating ROI to +-5%.

This has been discussed to death on the STT forum, with both theoretical models and simulations. When you see sim after sim of a 20% true ROI player ending up down after 1000 tournaments, you begin to appreciate the variance involved.

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
Your profit is then coming from your sats, not the supers.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Good point.

[HoldingFolding]

In STT Sats to MTTs you often see the lottery mentality. They can't afford to buy into the MTT directly and they are not experienced STT players but they are after a stab at the big cash. This makes these STTs significantly softer than, say, the 55s (and ring games perhaps although I don't play them). Of course, even given this Pat Southern point is still valid.