I wouldn't necessarily say he would have more 3rds than 1sts. Someone has to have more 1sts than thirds, to make up for the weaker people with more 3rds than 1sts, and you would expect it to be the better players.
Agreed... I think your logic is flawed Tie. The weaker people aren't getting more thirds than firsts, the weaker people are busting out short of the money. I am sure that Polk, myself, and many many other "winning" SNG players have more third place than first place finishes.
Every player, evenm the best ones should expect more thrids than 1sts....? So if you added it all up, the site has paid out more third places, less second splaces and even fewer firsts?
Explain this to me again? What am I missing?
I've been a winning player up the my current level (20+2) and always have had more 1sts, followed by seconds, and then thirds. I can understand as I move up theis will revers, but shouldn;t the very best players still get more 1sts than 3rds? There are an equal amount of them to give out, so how can even the best players expect more thirds than firsts? Whos getting the other 1sts?
The best players playing at any given level should have more 1sts than 3rds... This is a mathematical fact... that said... it is possible to be a profitable player with more 3rds than either 1sts & 2nds, but this much more rare... Much depends on the distribution of skill across the finite set of players at a given level.
Agreed... I think your logic is flawed Tie. The weakest people aren't getting more thirds than firsts, the weakest people are busting out short of the money. I am sure that Polk, myself, and many many other "winning" SNG players have more third place than first place finishes.
Some players with more skill than the weakest players will manage to place 3rd, so there will be less 3rd place finishes to distribute among the best players.... Similarly for 2nd place finishes as well.
If I were to place a bet... I would bet on the better players having more 1sts than 3rds...
Hmmm... I have no idea how many firsts, seconds, and/or thirds I've cashed for... I just know my ITM % and my net profit. Whatever is happening is working out alright.
A hypothetical... say my 58% ITM stat (which it was last time I checked at least) was NOTHING but third place finishes (which it is not). I would still be a profitable, winning player, yes?
I'll take a hearty mix of first, second, and third place finishes. As long as I'm in the money. Also, when it gets heads-up it's usually (although not always) bingo time. Push, push, push... the best hand wins sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't. Where's the skill in that? IMO the skill is in getting yourself that deep into the SNG in the first place.
Actually one would assume that if you play a long term profitable SNG strategy the only rule is finish in the money. This is not like a MTT where making the final table or first is the objective.
This is why bubble play and other dynamics for a SNG are different than a MTT. it is logical that where a good player may be more agressive on the bubble in a MTT to accumulate chips to propel themselves to the big money, that same player would instead tide themselves out (if a large stack then maybe pick on the medim stacks) but othewise wait to make the money. This may mean that when they make the money (3rd) they are in relatively weaker shape as they have been whittled down slighly by virtue of not being as agressive.
That player has played properly (long term for SNGs) made the money but reduced their chances of 1st or 2nd slightly and accordingly may end up with a greater proportion of 3rd place finishes. On the flip side the guy who played for first may have more chips and a larger 1st / 2nd ratio but on the flip side many more out of the money finishes and over all less profitable if my assumption is correct: in SNGs the only rule is make the money
My ITM for 6max sngs is aorund 65% across all levels with a large sample size. My goal in every sng is to get top 2 (make the money). Of my ITMs, roughly 40% first, 60% second. I think I'm one of the better 6max sng players and I don't feel that the best 6max players would tend to have more firsts than seconds.
I found it interesting and hadn't looked at my stats on SNG tracker for a bit, so here goes. 16% 1st 12 % 2nds 17% 3rds for a 45% ITM. This is mostly at under $50 buy ins.
Right. I wanted to make sure my logic isn't flawed.
There are three of each to give out. If one guy has more thirds, somewhere there is another with more firsts and seconds. It doesn't matter how many people enter.
Of course you can be profitable with more thirds than firsts, but it is incorrect to say winning players should expect to have more thirds than firsts. I would say one average, you should expect pretty close to equaly distribution as the calibre you play with gets better.
The best players should expect more 1sts place finishes.
Well, I think we've all made our points and now we're at an impasse of sorts. I'm with Chugs and GTA, and MH is with Tie. Next step is the tag team steel cage thumb wrestling match.
OK, I haven't played many sit n gos in awhile. But I'll go ahead and tell you that you are both right, and both wrong at the same time (sort of).
I disagree with AA, Chugs etc. that gauge a winning player by their ITM %. Irrelevant (sort of).
Similarly I disagree with Tie's assertion that the best players MUST have more 1sts than seconds (sort of).
The only relevant figure that matters is ROI.
Some SNG winners that focus on making the money may have a higher ITM % but a lower % of firsts. It is certainly possible for a player with a lower ITM % with a large % of 1sts in the SNG's he DOES money in to have a higher ROI than the person with the higher ITM % (and vice versa).
So, in a nutshell, quit throwing around indirect stats that don't truly reflect a player's win rate. (Of course this assumes we're using good old results oriented thinking to measure one's play, which is another debate in itself).
there are (quite possibly) people with more 1st than 2nd or 3rd place finishes. however, logically, there does not have to be.. the pool of sng players is far too vast to logically assume that since person A has more 3rds than 1st than somewhere out there, there HAS to be person B with more 1sts than 3rds.. there could be person C, D and E that account for all the 1st places in person A's games where he finished third. and that seems, in a nutshell, to be relevant. I will go back to sleep now, it's way too early for this.
Right, and so person C,D and E will have more 1sts than thirds. If they don't, then there must be person F,G or H that does. Somewhere, there will be these people. As soon as there is one person with more thirds and seconds than 1sts, there HAS to be a person somewhere with more 1sts.
It is impossible for this to be otherwise.
Typically, if I were to guess who has more 1sts then thirds, I would guess the better players, although it doesn't have to be the case. There could be a bunch of 10% ITM peopel who only have 1sts when they get in, but this would be unlikely in my opinion.
(Well I guess it's not much of an experiment. I'm just playing them, is all.)
Sample size: 98 games.
ITM %: 53
As expected, the percentage has dropped slightly as my sample size has increased. Not by a whole lot though... I am very happy with these results so far.
The whole 1st vs. 3rd distribution is a bit hard on the head, and while technically not technically impossible to have no-one with more 1st finishes than 3rds, it is very unlikely.
Basically, every time someone finishes 3rd in a SNG it takes away a possible 3rd place finish from everyone else. The amount of 3rd place finishes are finite within a specific sample size.
So, the only possible way for no-one in a specific sample size to make more less 3rd place finishes than 1st or 2nd is if everyone who finishes in the money finishes an equal amount of times in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Even than, you have more 1st and 2nd finished combined than 3rd.
As soon as 1 person wins an extra 3rd, 1 person has 1 less 3rd place finish. If they finish anywhere else (including not placing in the money) than they now have more 1st and 3nd place finishes.
Now, placing 1st one time is an anomoly and is not comparible with finishing 3rd most often in a statistically relevant amount of SNGs. However, for someone to not match that with a statistically relevant amount of 1st place finishes means that there must be a huge number of anomolous 1st place finishes.
The whole 1st vs. 3rd distribution is a bit hard on the head, and while technically not technically impossible to have no-one with more 1st finishes than 3rds, it is very unlikely.
Basically, every time someone finishes 3rd in a SNG it takes away a possible 3rd place finish from everyone else. The amount of 3rd place finishes are finite within a specific sample size.
So, the only possible way for no-one in a specific sample size to make more less 3rd place finishes than 1st or 2nd is if everyone who finishes in the money finishes an equal amount of times in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Even than, you have more 1st and 2nd finished combined than 3rd.
As soon as 1 person wins an extra 3rd, 1 person has 1 less 3rd place finish. If they finish anywhere else (including not placing in the money) than they now have more 1st and 3nd place finishes.
Now, placing 1st one time is an anomoly and is not comparible with finishing 3rd most often in a statistically relevant amount of SNGs. However, for someone to not match that with a statistically relevant amount of 1st place finishes means that there must be a huge number of anomolous 1st place finishes.
The whole 1st vs. 3rd distribution is a bit hard on the head, and while technically not technically impossible to have no-one with more 1st finishes than 3rds, it is very unlikely.
Basically, every time someone finishes 3rd in a SNG it takes away a possible 3rd place finish from everyone else. The amount of 3rd place finishes are finite within a specific sample size.
So, the only possible way for no-one in a specific sample size to make more less 3rd place finishes than 1st or 2nd is if everyone who finishes in the money finishes an equal amount of times in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Even than, you have more 1st and 2nd finished combined than 3rd.
As soon as 1 person wins an extra 3rd, 1 person has 1 less 3rd place finish. If they finish anywhere else (including not placing in the money) than they now have more 1st and 3nd place finishes.
Now, placing 1st one time is an anomoly and is not comparible with finishing 3rd most often in a statistically relevant amount of SNGs. However, for someone to not match that with a statistically relevant amount of 1st place finishes means that there must be a huge number of anomolous 1st place finishes.
Beautiful summer day, you've just arrived back in Toronto after making a final table at the WSOP. You're driving on open highway, fast, and you're listening to Q107, loud, and that song comes on.
If you're not grinning ear to ear by the chorus, you have no soul.Â
EDIT: Just for you I changed my signature. Well... I like to change it up every month or two anyway. No more Jumpin' Jack Flash.Â
well, i guess it's not necessarily annoying, but the stones have been milking that song for far too long. then again, that is just one guys humble opinion.
Comments
That would be true if they were 3 handed tables.
How can that be?
Every player, evenm the best ones should expect more thrids than 1sts....? So if you added it all up, the site has paid out more third places, less second splaces and even fewer firsts?
Explain this to me again? What am I missing?
I've been a winning player up the my current level (20+2) and always have had more 1sts, followed by seconds, and then thirds. I can understand as I move up theis will revers, but shouldn;t the very best players still get more 1sts than 3rds? There are an equal amount of them to give out, so how can even the best players expect more thirds than firsts? Whos getting the other 1sts?
Some players with more skill than the weakest players will manage to place 3rd, so there will be less 3rd place finishes to distribute among the best players.... Similarly for 2nd place finishes as well.
If I were to place a bet... I would bet on the better players having more 1sts than 3rds...
A hypothetical... say my 58% ITM stat (which it was last time I checked at least) was NOTHING but third place finishes (which it is not). I would still be a profitable, winning player, yes?
I'll take a hearty mix of first, second, and third place finishes. As long as I'm in the money. Also, when it gets heads-up it's usually (although not always) bingo time. Push, push, push... the best hand wins sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't. Where's the skill in that? IMO the skill is in getting yourself that deep into the SNG in the first place.
This is why bubble play and other dynamics for a SNG are different than a MTT. it is logical that where a good player may be more agressive on the bubble in a MTT to accumulate chips to propel themselves to the big money, that same player would instead tide themselves out (if a large stack then maybe pick on the medim stacks) but othewise wait to make the money. This may mean that when they make the money (3rd) they are in relatively weaker shape as they have been whittled down slighly by virtue of not being as agressive.
That player has played properly (long term for SNGs) made the money but reduced their chances of 1st or 2nd slightly and accordingly may end up with a greater proportion of 3rd place finishes. On the flip side the guy who played for first may have more chips and a larger 1st / 2nd ratio but on the flip side many more out of the money finishes and over all less profitable if my assumption is correct: in SNGs the only rule is make the money
There are three of each to give out. If one guy has more thirds, somewhere there is another with more firsts and seconds. It doesn't matter how many people enter.
Of course you can be profitable with more thirds than firsts, but it is incorrect to say winning players should expect to have more thirds than firsts. I would say one average, you should expect pretty close to equaly distribution as the calibre you play with gets better.
The best players should expect more 1sts place finishes.
Well then who does?
Everyone cannot have more thirds than firsts.
You guys just need to admit you are wrong and this will all go away.
I disagree with AA, Chugs etc. that gauge a winning player by their ITM %. Irrelevant (sort of).
Similarly I disagree with Tie's assertion that the best players MUST have more 1sts than seconds (sort of).
The only relevant figure that matters is ROI.
Some SNG winners that focus on making the money may have a higher ITM % but a lower % of firsts. It is certainly possible for a player with a lower ITM % with a large % of 1sts in the SNG's he DOES money in to have a higher ROI than the person with the higher ITM % (and vice versa).
So, in a nutshell, quit throwing around indirect stats that don't truly reflect a player's win rate. (Of course this assumes we're using good old results oriented thinking to measure one's play, which is another debate in itself).
Parallel universe? That's silly Arnold.
This makes no sense. Please tell your drunk friend to stop posting under your username.
It is impossible for this to be otherwise.
Typically, if I were to guess who has more 1sts then thirds, I would guess the better players, although it doesn't have to be the case. There could be a bunch of 10% ITM peopel who only have 1sts when they get in, but this would be unlikely in my opinion.
(Well I guess it's not much of an experiment. I'm just playing them, is all.)
Sample size: 98 games.
ITM %: 53
As expected, the percentage has dropped slightly as my sample size has increased. Not by a whole lot though... I am very happy with these results so far.
Basically, every time someone finishes 3rd in a SNG it takes away a possible 3rd place finish from everyone else. The amount of 3rd place finishes are finite within a specific sample size.
So, the only possible way for no-one in a specific sample size to make more less 3rd place finishes than 1st or 2nd is if everyone who finishes in the money finishes an equal amount of times in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Even than, you have more 1st and 2nd finished combined than 3rd.
As soon as 1 person wins an extra 3rd, 1 person has 1 less 3rd place finish. If they finish anywhere else (including not placing in the money) than they now have more 1st and 3nd place finishes.
Now, placing 1st one time is an anomoly and is not comparible with finishing 3rd most often in a statistically relevant amount of SNGs. However, for someone to not match that with a statistically relevant amount of 1st place finishes means that there must be a huge number of anomolous 1st place finishes.
Obviously.
agreed.
and since we're tlaking about awards, how about an award for the most annoying, overdone song in a signature?
coughdevocough.
ahem
All it needs is a little context:
Beautiful summer day, you've just arrived back in Toronto after making a final table at the WSOP. You're driving on open highway, fast, and you're listening to Q107, loud, and that song comes on.
If you're not grinning ear to ear by the chorus, you have no soul.Â
EDIT: Just for you I changed my signature. Well... I like to change it up every month or two anyway. No more Jumpin' Jack Flash.Â
in any case, I like this new signature of yours!