ROI question to Daliman, others, post away

raptor517 · #1 11-10-2004, 04:28 AM

daliman, i just started playing these sngs about 2 weeks ago. i know of no one else to ask. i have seen you at some of my tables, my party poker name is Bebop517. i play the 200s and 100s, depending on how i feel. i feel that i have a great advantage playing in these sngs, and im wondering what your true roi over however many sngs u have played is. people talk about you being the best, so i think you are a good person to ask.

my results do not seem good enough to me. i am currently ranked number 5 on the party poker ladder, and my roi in the 100s over 290 entries is a horrendous 3.45 %. as for the 200s, im doing slightly better, and have a roi of 6.68% over 218 trials. these numbers are atrocious to me. i try not to overestimate my abilities in poker, but i feel that i am at least above average in skill, and such a low roi does not reflect that.

i do not have very many sngs under my belt (less than 500) due to the fact that i have only recently started playing them. i generally play the 15-30, but took a few bad hits in that recently, so decided to opt for a change in scenery and made my new goal to be ranked in the top 10 on the leaderboard. so far this month im achieving my goal, but not making as much profit as i think i should. any thoughts from anyone about roi in general, and what can be expected at the 100 and 200 tables on party. thanks a bunch, and i look forward to posting more in the future

Jason Strasser · #2 11-10-2004, 06:30 AM

Aloha,

A 6% ROI is not bad at all. I would say that the absolute max is around 20%. ROI's over that are simply impossible to maintain. You really don't know how good you are over that small of a sample size, and do NOT let the leaderboard tell you anything. It is much more of a function of how much you play. I once dropped over 4 grand in a few weeks during the summer, and I was all over the damn leaderboard.

-Jason

bluesbassman · #3 11-10-2004, 07:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Aloha,

A 6% ROI is not bad at all. I would say that the absolute max is around 20%. ROI's over that are simply impossible to maintain. You really don't know how good you are over that small of a sample size, and do NOT let the leaderboard tell you anything. It is much more of a function of how much you play. I once dropped over 4 grand in a few weeks during the summer, and I was all over the damn leaderboard.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to contradict the FAQ and other posts, which claim an "okay" ROI for SnGs is 25%, and it's feasible to maintain an ROI up to about 40%. Is it because he's playing at a higher buy-in?

jcm4ccc · #4 11-10-2004, 08:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i feel that i am at least above average in skill, and such a low roi does not reflect that.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, your numbers reflect that exactly.

Jason Strasser · #5 11-10-2004, 08:21 AM

Yes. That suggestion was not for the 200s, I promise you. Jesus would struggle to pull off a 25% ROI.

chill888 · #6 11-10-2004, 08:44 AM

Remember you need a 10% (or ~ 7.5% at $200s) ROI just to break even and cover the vig. An "average" player has a negative ROI corresponding to the fee.

Over a large sample the fee matters. Play 1000 S%Gs at $299 and you have spend 15,000 in fees. That's a lot of buy-ins.

Net, if your sample is acccurate then you are above average.

rjb03 · #7 11-10-2004, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Remember you need a 10% (or ~ 7.5% at $200s) ROI just to break even and cover the vig. An "average" player has a negative ROI corresponding to the fee.

Over a large sample the fee matters. Play 1000 S%Gs at $299 and you have spend 15,000 in fees. That's a lot of buy-ins.

Net, if your sample is acccurate then you are above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you just put the fee into the calculation? net/(buy-in+fee). That way 0% roi is break even. This is probably the way the poster calculated his and is doing better than break-even, not worse.

chill888 · #8 11-10-2004, 08:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember you need a 10% (or ~ 7.5% at $200s) ROI just to break even and cover the vig. An "average" player has a negative ROI corresponding to the fee.

Over a large sample the fee matters. Play 1000 S%Gs at $299 and you have spend 15,000 in fees. That's a lot of buy-ins.

Net, if your sample is acccurate then you are above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you just put the fee into the calculation? net/(buy-in+fee). That way 0% roi is break even. This is probably the way the poster calculated his and is doing better than break-even, not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sorry if I was misleading. You certainly put the fee into the calculation. My point was that people with 0% ROI net of fee are really achieving a 10% ROI (without the fee) and are thus a a fair bit above average. so a 6% ROI is like a 13.5% (at the $200s where the fee is a lower percent)) ROI without fees - and so is well above average.

Now whether an average player is any good ----- that's another discussion.

citanul · #9 11-10-2004, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. That suggestion was not for the 200s, I promise you. Jesus would struggle to pull off a 25% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and others,

I'm wondering: from discussions I've seen, this is the general sentiment aboutthe 200s, that a 25% ROI is damn good. However, it seems that the high 30%'s is accepted as very doable for the 100s, as far as I can tell. I'm wondering where others would draw the line on trading off a bit of EV for what I think would be a much lower variance.

Specifically, I told a friend last night that I would probably rather play the 100s with a 30% ROI than the 200s with a 17-18% ROI. Now, this may be fallacious even for me, when I think about it more, but I think I'd probably sack a couple bucks in earn in order to what, halve the variance?

What do others thing there?

Also, to re-ask the original question, around where is a good level for the 100s ROI?

Thanks,

citanul

adanthar · #10 11-10-2004, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering: from discussions I've seen, this is the general sentiment aboutthe 200s, that a 25% ROI is damn good. However, it seems that the high 30%'s is accepted as very doable for the 100s, as far as I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

No post I've ever seen about the 100's has said anything about high 30's or even low 30's. If it was possible there wouldn't be anyone playing the 200's.

Based on previous posts, I'm pretty sure the *30's* max ROI is in the high 30's and from there every realistic level peak is -6-8%.