|
|
#1
11-11-2005, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing variance of 180-player tourneys and 1800-player tourneys
I did some analyses comparing the variance of 180-player tournaments to 1800-player tournaments for a good tournament player. I used the Pokerstars payout structure for the two tournaments, and assumed a $20 +$2 buy-in.
I defined a “good tournament player” as twice as good as average. For example, in a 180 player tournament, the average player will finish in 1st place 1 out of every 180 tries, will finish in 2nd place 1 out of every 180 tries, etc.. This analysis assumed that the player finished in first place 1 out of every 90 tries, in second place 1 out of every 90 tries, etc. I grouped tournaments into groups of 100 and looked at the average winnings for each group of 100. For the 2 types of tournaments, the average winnings over 100 tournaments was the same: 180 player tournament: $1798.75 average winnings over 100 tournaments. ROI: 81% 1800 player tournament: $1798.87 average winnings over 100 tournaments. ROI: 81% However, as you would expect, the variance was much greater for the larger tournament. I ran a simulation of 10,000 series of 100 tournaments. Here are the findings: 180 player tournament (100 tournaments played)
1800 player tournament (100 tournaments played)
I was especially surprised that the median winnings was higher for the smaller tournament, and that the percentage of times winnings were over $1000 was higher for the smaller tournament. But I double-checked the figures and they are right. 
|
|
#2
11-11-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Comparing variance of 180-player tourneys and 1800-player tourneys
[ QUOTE ]
This analysis assumed that the player finished in first place 1 out of every 90 tries, in second place 1 out of every 90 tries, etc. [/ QUOTE ] "etc" Eventually they will finish in 180 positions but do so in only 90 tournaments.
|
|
#3
11-11-2005, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Comparing variance of 180-player tourneys and 1800-player tourneys
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This analysis assumed that the player finished in first place 1 out of every 90 tries, in second place 1 out of every 90 tries, etc. [/ QUOTE ] "etc" Eventually they will finish in 180 positions but do so in only 90 tournaments. [/ QUOTE ] I did the analysis so that they finished in the money twice as often as the average player. For the 180 player tourney, I figured that they finished in each of the money spots 1 out of every 90 tries. So that's 18 out of 90 tries they finished ITM. The rest were OOTM.
|
|
#4
11-11-2005, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Comparing variance of 180-player tourneys and 1800-player tourneys
Very nice.
This is freaky: [ QUOTE ] Lost money over 100 tournaments: 42.7% of the time [/ QUOTE ] If it wouldn't take much tweaking on your part, I think that this analysis would be more significant for the average player (1/180 or 1/1800 for every place).
|
|
#5
11-11-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Comparing variance of 180-player tourneys and 1800-player tourneys
[ QUOTE ]
If it wouldn't take much tweaking on your part, I think that this analysis would be more significant for the average player (1/180 or 1/1800 for every place). [/ QUOTE ] 180 player tournament (100 tournaments played)
1800 player tournament (100 tournaments played)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
