Done bitching about bad beats for awhile (I hope). Here's a graph of $3.30 90 Man KO Sngs from the last couple weeks. Had an additional break even stretch for 48 sng's on my laptop that aren't included plus a session of 16 from today where i was + 30 buy ins. Overall the last 48 sng's i was +100 buy ins. variance man, variance.
by the way im taking names of all the haters out there. I cannot wait for what the future holds for me in this sport. I'll be eating your babies and shitting on everyone.
0 votes
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
i don't think you should be looking in term of buyins, look in terms of 1st place payouts
u were down 3 payouts or something i guess and now you're even, its not a very big swing i think and 48 of these is an incredibly tiny sample, you should probably put in a lot of volume if you want to build a roll and a graph that can give you confidence without being unrealistic
On December 21 2010 01:43 Jelle wrote:
i don't think you should be looking in term of buyins, look in terms of 1st place payouts
u were down 3 payouts or something i guess and now you're even, its not a very big swing i think and 48 of these is an incredibly tiny sample, you should probably put in a lot of volume if you want to build a roll and a graph that can give you confidence without being unrealistic
LOL. I would love to see someone run worst than this over 45k hands with my winrate. i've ran a lot worst over bigger samples obviously, just nothing in the short term like this.
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
in terms of being below EV obviously it is easier to run worst in the long term than the short term
$/Hands obviously not.
45k sample vs 200k. in these same tournaments i've been $600 below EV over 200k hands but I had never been $500 below EV over 45k hands.
trolling?
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
I took it as a ROI thing. Meaning like a good player could run at a -(ROI) in the short term obviously bc of variance but not in the long term (or super long term possibly b/c of tournament variance). B/C obviously in that case you cant run worse in the long term ROI wise then in the short term if you are a winning player
On December 21 2010 03:32 4TM wrote:
I took it as a ROI thing. Meaning like a good player could run at a -(ROI) in the short term obviously bc of variance but not in the long term (or super long term possibly b/c of tournament variance). B/C obviously in that case you cant run worse in the long term ROI wise then in the short term if you are a winning player
edit: but in collective ev of course that's true
is 1.4 million hands not collective enough to calculate EV to within -5% (Negative 5% or higher) ?
not a level.
edit: assuming a winning player.
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
Contact Users: 927 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 03:18
