Mtt roi?
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.
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.
Comments
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
then please include buy-in ranges in your answer.
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.
You 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.
i 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..
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
i 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
The volatility in tournaments is out of sight.
To answer your question you need to calculate your standard deviation.
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
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.
this would seem to be more on the ball.
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.
So what's your standard deviation?
ROI is def the best indicator but the variance is so high that it'd difficult to know for sure what it is. I'd say >50% roi is what you should strive for.
Hope this is only what we're striving for, and not what we have.
Haha, also I should say that your ROI will depend a lot on your volume. People with >100% roi long-term are usually low volume players who crush, but some of the players with the highest profits might have around 20-30% roi but put in heaps of volume.
(i'm only referencing my stats for this year)
ROI = 38.25%
ITM = 23.68%
Standard Deviation (profit) = 19.83
Standard Deviation (ROI) = 596.09
i was lazy and just used an online calculator that can be found here. just write in all your results.
Whoa, like all your results ever? I don't get it, lol.
So you can conclude that about 19 times out of 20 you can get a result within two standard deviations of your mean.
As I said earlier, The volatility in tournaments is out of sight.
yeah, all your results. i put in my results for this year only (which took a while).