This is why +ROI !!SOMETIMES!! doesnt mean jack

[lookEVO]

good point. ive been playing more of them, just wish i hadnt needed to pay bills or i wouldnt have cashed it all out.

[thetugman]

idk why everybody's being a dick. this guy is spot on.

you need to start staking -ROI players since they are duuuuuuue.

[Garnick]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0WxDrVUrSvI

[sharkfish79]

Originally Posted by xBlah

Wooow. I thought i was allowed an opinion, geezus, y so offended? did i hit a nerve? hilarious, y even post if ur just gonna talk trash? isnt this the shooting off thread? y read if ur so above what im saying and its such a waste of ur godly time? first, i get stakes no prob, ur readin things that arent there, plus, the example i gave was my second point, the main point was that tons of good players have slightly -ROI, ur saying u disagree with that?? really???
interesting, i this was a place for free exchange of ideas, i guess im not cool enough to speak yet or something

[wynnkid]

i love "ventelating" threads

[GambleAB]

Originally Posted by sharkfish79

I think its so funny how much emphasis people put on ROI at this site. Of course you want to stake the "better players", so those with ridiculously bad ROI are obvious bad investments. However, only like the top %2 or %3 of online players are +ROI, with ALOT of players hovering around 0 or slightly under. Does that mean these %2 players are THAT much better than the rest. In some cases its a definite yes, in most though, I dont think you can say they are too much better, if at all. A lot of times ESPECIALLY when it comes to MTT's, the +ROI is because of one or two lucky scores/lucky streaks. On the other side, alot of good players have -ROI due to the opposite, downswing/bad luck streak.
Ive staked plus ROI horses,(names not needed), to play games/sat's that I am personally 3 for 7 in atm. These are really easy and I figured if I could do 3/7, then these "better players" should be able to at least match that or at least do 1/5. One of the horses produced exactly as expected, but the "higher ROI" player, went 0/5. Disappointing to say the least. This has taught me,(a few times now), that +ROI DOES NOT guarantee a good player or investment. Again, especially when it comes to MTTs.
I am only ranting here, I know every stake has its risks, but Ive seen this more than a few times now. Also Ill be watching out for players who play multiple stakes at once, I dont think this is too smart cuz it widens your focus more than multi-tabling tournies that are similar. I will be including this in my future stakes. Anyway I think im over this vent session now, Im not posting this to "hate" on +ROIers, (cuz then id hate myself), Im just pointing out something i think alot of players know already, especially the good ones.

Thanks for listening!

I'm a sucker, so I'll go ahead and reply to you as if you believe what you are saying.

My points will be numbered for easy crazy ranting reference:

1. I believe the figure for people that are +ROI in MTTs is in the 5-7% range. That being said, that figure has nothing to do with your argument.

2. Yes, a good deal of the players who have large sample sizes and are +ROI in MTTs have that positive expectation because of a couple of large scores. That is due to the nature of tournaments, not because they somehow got lucky a handful of times. Tournaments are constructed so that you only make money if you finish in the top three, and you only make any sort of decent money if you finish first. A typical cycle for a good tournament player is to have a stretch where they about break even, before making a large score. You are never going to find someone who wins 10% of the tournaments they enter, nor will you find anyone who min cashes in every event they enter. Tournaments are a long term proposition.

3. The example you stated in your second paragraph is gobledegook. It makes no sense and has no basis in anything real. You are 3/7 in what? Winning SNGs? Cashing in SNGs? Cashing in MTTs? Since you are talking about MTTs, I'd having to assume it's the latter, in which case, who cares? If you are playing tournaments, any sample size under 100 is so small it's basically statistically insignificant, and any sample size under 1000 isn't going to be anywhere close to accurate because of the varience. Being bummed because someone didn't cash over a sample size of five tournaments makes zero sense, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how both staking and tournaments work.

4. You aren't +ROI in MTTs.

[cds0699]

...........
...........
...........
...........
...
...........
...........
...........
...........

[mutigers5591]

[ ] op knows what hes talking about
[ ] op is good at poker
[x] op likes to rant
[x] op should stay out of shooting off

[thetugman]

Originally Posted by GambleAB

I'm a sucker, so I'll go ahead and reply to you as if you believe what you are saying.

My points will be numbered for easy crazy ranting reference:

1. I believe the figure for people that are +ROI in MTTs is in the 5-7% range. That being said, that figure has nothing to do with your argument.

2. Yes, a good deal of the players who have large sample sizes and are +ROI in MTTs have that positive expectation because of a couple of large scores. That is due to the nature of tournaments, not because they somehow got lucky a handful of times. Tournaments are constructed so that you only make money if you finish in the top three, and you only make any sort of decent money if you finish first. A typical cycle for a good tournament player is to have a stretch where they about break even, before making a large score. You are never going to find someone who wins 10% of the tournaments they enter, nor will you find anyone who min cashes in every event they enter. Tournaments are a long term proposition.

3. The example you stated in your second paragraph is gobledegook. It makes no sense and has no basis in anything real. You are 3/7 in what? Winning SNGs? Cashing in SNGs? Cashing in MTTs? Since you are talking about MTTs, I'd having to assume it's the latter, in which case, who cares? If you are playing tournaments, any sample size under 100 is so small it's basically statistically insignificant, and any sample size under 1000 isn't going to be anywhere close to accurate because of the varience. Being bummed because someone didn't cash over a sample size of five tournaments makes zero sense, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how both staking and tournaments work.

4. You aren't +ROI in MTTs.

for #3: if we're talking sample size for MTTs, i would say 1k games is extremely ineffective at determining any sort of expected ROI.

[loddar_m]

i fold

[cds0699]

Originally Posted by loddar_m

i fold

I think the OP should check-raise all in, better entertainment value for us imo!

[AceEleven]

11 - Win a Stake!! - Next Stakes: 78,111, 78,222, 78,333, 78,444, 78,555, 78,669 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... Last Page)
AceEleven

[xBlah]

[sharkfish79]

Originally Posted by Czar

so -ROI is better right?

ya thats exactly what i said, ur good at reading.
o
m
g

thanks to the people that realized im what i meant, i have NO clue whats up with all the dickhead responses, ive never done anything to any of these "cool guys", but whatever its reality not just my opinion. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF GOOD PLAYERS WITH -ROI, period. plus, i didnt say ANYWHERE that only -roiers should be staked now, ?? i mean christ i even said, "obv ridiculously bad -ROIers are bad investments" and "im not hating, just venting", "i know stakes have their risks/variance", and their still being total *******s.??

thanks jerks

[asgbawler]

I actually agree with some of OP's post

[asgbawler]

but at the same time OP might be dumb, so I dunno, but he has some valid points.

[mutigers5591]

look at the title of your thread





that is why people are laughing at you

[cds0699]

Originally Posted by sharkfish79

ya thats exactly what i said, ur good at reading.
o
m
g

thanks to the people that realized im what i meant, i have NO clue whats up with all the dickhead responses, ive never done anything to any of these "cool guys", but whatever its reality not just my opinion. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF GOOD PLAYERS WITH -ROI, period. plus, i didnt say ANYWHERE that only -roiers should be staked now, ?? i mean christ i even said, "obv ridiculously bad -ROIers are bad investments" and "im not hating, just venting", "i know stakes have their risks/variance", and their still being total *******s.??

thanks jerks

Welcome to Shooting Off LOL!

[asgbawler]

Originally Posted by mutigers5591

look at the title of your thread





that is why people are laughing at you

this

[Billabong526]

I thought everyone won at online poker?