Diary of a MTT Grinder Wannabe

[titaniumbean]

How many games do you need as proof to say 80% is attainable?

3,307   $22.44     $43     83%   $74,224     N/A   87

that is my life time profits above which doesn't include my first year and a half i played at cryptologic on will hill and the 3 holidays i won and also the extra $10000 on pacific i had won that wasn't logged because pacific have only recently included scheduled into proceedings. So my roi is actually much closer to 90%.

How many more games do i need to play before i can say i am a 80% roi player then, because i am finding you guys' easy dismissal of how maintaining a roi this high is very unlikely, as perplexing.

You have zero idea of the concept of variance then, reread if you didn't NoahSD's blog.

Without 3-5k hand samples you cant be 'sure' that you will be winning even with a high winrate. 80% is ridic high and considering how much tougher the games have got in the last few years and the winrates people achieved back in the softer games I really doubt this is anywhere near sustainable.

[Ant040689]

ah fair play on the point that all of those 3000 odd games have been in the last 500 days so it hasn't been played when the games were really soft. from late 2008 onwards. Yeh the game has got tougher even since then but i still think i will maintain an 80% roi for this year and possibly even into the next but i know someone on here is going to say even a year or two isn't enough to show if you are a winning player at tourns and that its a fair reflection so i will just carry on playing until i have sufficient evidence for your seemingly high criteria.

[stato_1]

How many games do you need as proof to say 80% is attainable?

3,307   $22.44     $43     83%   $74,224     N/A   87

that is my life time profits above which doesn't include my first year and a half i played at cryptologic on will hill and the 3 holidays i won and also the extra $10000 on pacific i had won that wasn't logged because pacific have only recently included scheduled into proceedings. So my roi is actually much closer to 90%.

How many more games do i need to play before i can say i am a 80% roi player then, because i am finding you guys' easy dismissal of how maintaining a roi this high is very unlikely, as perplexing.

R


You have zero idea of the concept of variance then, reread if you didn't NoahSD's blog.

Without 3-5k hand samples you cant be 'sure' that you will be winning even with a high winrate. 80% is ridic high and considering how much tougher the games have got in the last few years and the winrates people achieved back in the softer games I really doubt this is anywhere near sustainable.

3k games really is nothing. Dont think anyone is saying ur not a good/winning player, but its pretty much a fact that 80 % is an impossible roi to maintain in small fields. I think the only reason that ppl are mentioning it is that in an earlier post u infer that u are basing ur 200 buy in rule on an 80% roi which is extremely unlikely to be (isn't) ur true roi, even if it has been so far. Something more like 30,000 games would probably give you a more realistic idea of what it is, and if its still 80% then ill get down on my knees and sincerely apologise.

[titaniumbean]

How many games do you need as proof to say 80% is attainable?

3,307   $22.44     $43     83%   $74,224     N/A   87

that is my life time profits above which doesn't include my first year and a half i played at cryptologic on will hill and the 3 holidays i won and also the extra $10000 on pacific i had won that wasn't logged because pacific have only recently included scheduled into proceedings. So my roi is actually much closer to 90%.

How many more games do i need to play before i can say i am a 80% roi player then, because i am finding you guys' easy dismissal of how maintaining a roi this high is very unlikely, as perplexing.

R


You have zero idea of the concept of variance then, reread if you didn't NoahSD's blog.

Without 3-5k hand samples you cant be 'sure' that you will be winning even with a high winrate. 80% is ridic high and considering how much tougher the games have got in the last few years and the winrates people achieved back in the softer games I really doubt this is anywhere near sustainable.

3k games really is nothing. Dont think anyone is saying ur not a good/winning player, but its pretty much a fact that 80 % is an impossible roi to maintain in small fields. I think the only reason that ppl are mentioning it is that in an earlier post u infer that u are basing ur 200 buy in rule on an 80% roi which is extremely unlikely to be (isn't) ur true roi, even if it has been so far. Something more like 30,000 games would probably give you a more realistic idea of what it is, and if its still 80% then ill get down on my knees and sincerely apologise whilst begging for coaching !!

Yeah what Stato said. Not in any way a dig at you personally, more a general dig at the world of poker and peoples seeming lack of comprehension of just how much variance there is in the game and in everything about the game.

[stato_1]

Sly fix bean

[titaniumbean]

Sly fix bean

i'm a sly dog isit

[c4ught]

How many games do you need as proof to say 80% is attainable?

3,307   $22.44     $43     83%   $74,224     N/A   87

that is my life time profits above which doesn't include my first year and a half i played at cryptologic on will hill and the 3 holidays i won and also the extra $10000 on pacific i had won that wasn't logged because pacific have only recently included scheduled into proceedings. So my roi is actually much closer to 90%.

How many more games do i need to play before i can say i am a 80% roi player then, because i am finding you guys' easy dismissal of how maintaining a roi this high is very unlikely, as perplexing.

Not sure anyone could ever put in enough volume to fully convince someone they are an 80% roi player imo.

[Moskvich]

Would it not make more sense to ignore the Sharkscope ROI figure (average of ROIs from each individual tournament) and instead use a figure derived from average profit as a percentage of average buy-in. That seems to be 50-odd % here. Those Sharkscope figures suggest your return is (predictably) quite a lot bigger in percentage terms in lower buy-in comps than in higher buy-ins, and the 83% (let alone an 80-100% range) is therefore misleading.

Good going anyway, whatever stats you use... Hope you don't get annoyed by people questioning a stat or two - I think they just don't want to see you be unrealistic, because so many people fall into the trap of having a good few months and extrapolating that into unlikely figures for their yearly earnings - and in that they're really just trying to be helpful.

[SuuPRlim]

Moskovich +1 all your posts are really good 

Just a quick point in Ant's favor on the ROI front, its actually harder to sustain a higher  average ROI on the smaller sites as the big binks that rocket the figure up come along much much infrequently, so the 3,000 game sample would be extremely encouraging and would suggest you are capable of sustaining a high (above av) ROI. The advantages of the smaller/softer fields are not that you can keep a higher ROI, but that downswings will be smaller and you can grind them off a smaller roll allowing you to play higher and earn a higher $/hour. Given a choice between an 80% roi at $50 p/hour or a 45% roi with $60 p/hour it should be a pretty easy choice.

80% imo, which I can only take from everything I've seen and read and people i know is too high, very very few players are capable of sustaining it but I'd fucking love it if you got a 40k game sample with 80% and stuck in all our eyes lol

What kind of game sample to identify a true ROI I don't really know, I would suggest that in terms of hands played you would need 4 or 5 times the amount of hands a cash player would need. I would hazard a guess at 5million tourney hands.

Thing is with MTT variance is that because chipEV and $ev are often so far different, I think it's likely to be impossible to ever actually see variance through - so if there is no real long term lol 81% it is!!!!

[Ant040689]

Well i am going to average about 5000 tournaments a year i think. I would assume 15000 games is enough to truly distinguish an mtt'er esp with the smaller fields. So that is 3 years worth grinding pretty hardcore aswell

[SuuPRlim]

Well i am going to average about 5000 tournaments a year i think. I would assume 15000 games is enough to truly distinguish an mtt'er esp with the smaller fields. So that is 3 years worth grinding pretty hardcore aswell

I dont think it's anywhere near enough personally, but then again, it doesn't realllllly matter lol if in 3 years time you've got $250k in the bank you're not gonna give much of a fuck whether you've got 40 or 80% ROI

Im sure so many MTT players run way way above $ev lifetime even over a 10-15k sample.

Just run like god on a sunday :p gogogogogogogo

[Ant040689]

Fair play to all responses on the ROI matter. My focus is and always was on the yearly profit of $100k and if i get there nothing else matters. Having a big grind tonight. My last sessoin resulted in a $800 loss so would be nice to go on a killing tonight.

And to start my run good i won a bet on the wolves Blackpool game which has resulted in me winning $480, making sure not to give the result away there haha.

[Ant040689]

I have had a torried last 4 nights of playing. I had the first two nights of final table bubbling about 4/5 very big tourns and then on the latter two days i tilted heavily because of the earlier frustration and got slightly more unlucky than usual. This has made me step back and consider things.

I will have to find out what my roll is after withdrawals make my bank. Also assess where i think i may be going wrong. I know one problem is always trying to include ipoker but i swear to God all it does is tilt me to the high heavens, so despite them having very nice tourns i am going to see them off my list. Then i am going to take off one or two biggies i don't play too well in.

Basically to make sure i am not over exerting myself in the broadness of tournies i take on and play the ones i am most comfortable in. I have a habit of taking too many on and running the risk of those affecting my other tourns. I also have a problem with wanting to play too high too quickly and ignoring the lower $20-30f tourns that i played superbly in. I will be adding those back in and trying to build my roll slower and in a more assured manner so i can always take a tilt hit if needs be, with that leeway i probably won't tilt.

So yeh i am going to be playing lower now with the slight loss in BR, also taking off tourns that go out to tilt me and putting back in more of the tourns i used to crush. Eventually i will find the perfect grind for me.

[GreekStein]

btw u played absolutely sick at football on sunday

[Ant040689]

haha thanks. I was talking with joe (a teamate) that the reason i did well is because those areas are way too big for a five a side pitch making it easier for a goalkeeper to narrow down the angle. Gutted when they scored!