Mtt roi?

trigs

what do you consider a good ROI for MTTs?

and what do you consider a good sample size of tournaments?

i've read various opinions online and i'd like to hear yours as well.

[deleted]

it depends on the buy in.....right?

Richard~

When I mark people on betsson I give my highest non profit related marker to players with an ABI > 20 dollars in combination with an roi > 40% and a 2k+ sample. These are pretty much the only guys I bother looking out for in my daily tournaments.

Myself, I'm at around 33% for texas, could probably bump that up if I managed to close my deep runs som more. Also at 60% for omaha and 40% for omaha8

trigs

darbday;262317 wroteit depends on the buy in.....right?

then please include buy-in ranges in your answer.

[deleted]

trigs;262320 wrotethen please include buy-in ranges in your answer.

thats all i know about this...its a fleeting stat though i think....ive heard someone say the sample size needs to be a lifetime...

trigs

i have two comments to make.

first, i kind of understand how ROI can be a fleeting stat. for example, even a consistent 20% ROI in $50 MTTs would net you a lot more money than a 60% ROI in $10 MTTs. so to a certain extent, it really depends on the amount of variance you are comfortable with.

$50 x 2000 (example sample size) = $100,000 and at 20% ROI = $20,000
$10 x 2000 = $20,000 and at 60% ROI = $12,000

second, i constantly hear all these comments about how you need thousands and thousands of tournaments before you can reach an accurate ROI. i obviously understand this point in light of variance, but i'm curious as to its standards. consider the following:

before internet poker, players could only play so many tournaments at a time. just to put a number on it, let's say the average professional played in 100 tournaments a year. therefore, in order to get a good sample size and an accurate ROI, a player would have to reach at least 2000 tournaments (i keep choosing 2000 because i've read this before, but some people say a lot more than this) otherwise variance could factor in. therefore, before internet poker, a player needed to play for twenty years (2000/100=20) before they could reach an accurate ROI. hence, a professional player could have just been on a hot streak of variance for perhaps 10 to 15 years and in fact be a losing player in general since his sample size is still not large enough.

so i pose the question as to whether extremely huge sample sizes are required only because it is now possible to play in so many tournaments. do these large sample sizes still hold true for live only players? if yes, then technically players like doyle brunson could have just been running hot for twenty years and are really not that great at poker. i kind of find that hard to believe but it seems possible to me unless i'm missing something.

compuease

You know trigs, that is simply a thought provoking post and points out how our perceptions change over time. I wonder if we have really been looking at variance correctly?

[deleted]

trigs;262370 wrote so i pose the question as to whether extremely huge sample sizes are required only because it is now possible to play in so many tournaments. do these large sample sizes still hold true for live only players? if yes, then technically players like doyle brunson could have just been running hot for twenty years and are really not that great at poker. i kind of find that hard to believe but it seems possible to me unless i'm missing something.

yup

Richard~

trigs;262370 wrote
so i pose the question as to whether extremely huge sample sizes are required only because it is now possible to play in so many tournaments. do these large sample sizes still hold true for live only players? if yes, then technically players like doyle brunson could have just been running hot for twenty years and are really not that great at poker. i kind of find that hard to believe but it seems possible to me unless i'm missing something.

You do realize A LOT of the famous live pros suck, right?

trigs

Richard~;262377 wroteYou do realize A LOT of the famous live pros suck, right?

i did not limit my comment to famous live pros so i think i am missing your point.

trigs

compuease;262371 wroteYou know trigs, that is simply a thought provoking post and points out how our perceptions change over time. I wonder if we have really been looking at variance correctly?

i guess that you and i agree that it may not be so cut and dry as others may believe.

compuease

trigs;262422 wrotei guess that you and i agree that it may not be so cut and dry as others may believe.

lol, these Internet kids don't think there is anything beyond the net.. :)

Richard~

trigs;262421 wrotei did not limit my comment to famous live pros so i think i am missing your point.

Just saying, all you have to do is watch some poker after dark or lesser poker shows to see that some people are just ran hot to get their money and aren't all that great

trigs

Richard~;262435 wroteJust saying, all you have to do is watch some poker after dark or lesser poker shows to see that some people are just ran hot to get their money and aren't all that great

i don't think that i agree that most successful live professionals are just running hot if that is what you are suggesting.

Richard~

trigs;262443 wrotei don't think that i agree that most successful live professionals are just running hot if that is what you are suggesting.

Why not? have you heard some of these guys playing shorthanded shortstacked on poker after dark lol

ReefAquarium

trigs;262316 wrotewhat do you consider a good ROI for MTTs?

and what do you consider a good sample size of tournaments?

i've read various opinions online and i'd like to hear yours as well.

The volatility in tournaments is out of sight.

To answer your question you need to calculate your standard deviation.

westside8

trigs;262443 wrotei don't think that i agree that most successful live professionals are just running hot if that is what you are suggesting.

Live pro ran good in that they were good at the right time, or ran good at the right time so they can carry their fame from on the felt to make income off the felt

trigs

Richard~;262500 wroteWhy not? have you heard some of these guys playing shorthanded shortstacked on poker after dark lol

again, you are referring to only a select group of famous players. so obviously i am not referring to such a select group. therefore, i do not agree with your suggestion as it relates to my original comments.

my original comments aside, yes i completely agree with you that there are famous players that suck ass at poker.

trigs

ReefAquarium;262509 wroteThe volatility in tournaments is out of sight.

To answer your question you need to calculate your standard deviation.

this would seem to be more on the ball.

trigs

maybe i'm asking the wrong question (even though i think it's a valid one).

for the MTT players on this site, what stat(s) do you use to gauge the level of your tournament success? do you even use one or do you just look to your profit and nothing else?

i've normally read that ITM and ROI are what MTT players look at, but that could be up for debate.