Are 100 STTs enough to know my skill level?

jacQues

I played 100 STTs on Stars. Is this enough to tell me anything about my 'skill level' of play? If it is, does the results below indicate that I am not good enough? I started recording (in Excel) recently. The results look like I get placed 1st/2nd/3rd etc. exactly once in every <# of players> games. This could (?) indicate that its very random. I do see A LOT of all-ins (coinflip situations) during most tourneys.

place: times: prize: entry: net: total: perc:
1st: 10 15 3.4 11.6 116 10.00%
2nd: 9 9 3.4 5.6 50.4 9.00%
3rd: 15 6 3.4 2.6 39 15.00%
other: 66 0 3.4 -3.4 -224.4 66.00%
total: 100 balance: -19

Would going to the $6+0.50 level help? I'm assuming here that the overall level would be higher there, making the variance less. Also the rake % is better. My bankroll allows it, but I'm wondering if its not wishfull-thinking etc. So should I continue playing these ones a bit, move up or is it hard/impossible to say?

jacQues

RoundTower

place: times: prize: entry: net: total: perc:
1st:   10 15 3.4 11.6  116    10.00%
2nd:    9  9 3.4  5.6   50.4   9.00%
3rd:   15  6 3.4  2.6   39    15.00%
other: 66  0 3.4 -3.4 -224.4  66.00%
total: 100 balance: -19

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me as if you're beating the games apart from the rake. But even with the slightly lower rake playing $6+$.50, you wouldn't be beating the game if you keep up those percentages.

I think the variance per tournament increases as you play higher levels, not decrease.

Probably you will not be profitable playing the $6 STTs at the moment, but if you can afford to have a go at them and see how you do, why not.

staringelf

the recommended no. of STTs to find out your true ROI and ITM% is about 1,000 (or more depending on how precise you want it). However, you should have a fair idea after about 400 or so. 100 isn't really enough. the chance of hitting good or bad variance makes it too small a sample size tbh.

As for moving up, if your bankroll allows it (if you have 50 buyins or more) you should. there won't be much noticable skill difference i wouldn't think so you should be well able to hold your own. as you said yourself, the rake is better so that's one reason anyway for moving up. just make sure you drop back down when your roll tells you too.

sikes

RoundTower wrote:

I think the variance per tournament increases as you play higher levels, not decrease.

dont see why this would be the case, if you get your money in as 80% fav is a 5$ or a 500$ over the course of 10000000 samples, both will be 80%

i might have misunderstood ur post though

bohsman

sikes wrote:

dont see why this would be the case, if you get your money in as 80% fav is a 5$ or a 500$ over the course of 10000000 samples, both will be 80%

i might have misunderstood ur post though

It should be more difficult to get it in as an 80% favourite the higher you go.

hotspur

JacQues stop wasting your time with those buy in sit n go's, it's monkey poker, someone who has been playing card games as long as you have should have zero difficulty beating $20 sit n go's at the least, if you can afford it then you should play them instead. Your skill edge is actually lessened at those micro buy ins, just like play money sit n go's are tougher to beat than $320 ones

sikes

bohsman wrote:

It should be more difficult to get it in as an 80% favourite the higher you go.

true, but the same can be said for any percentage, was just an example!

RoundTower

hotspur wrote:

JacQues stop wasting your time with those buy in sit n go's, it's monkey poker, someone who has been playing card games as long as you have should have zero difficulty beating $20 sit n go's at the least, if you can afford it then you should play them instead. Your skill edge is actually lessened at those micro buy ins, just like play money sit n go's are tougher to beat than $320 ones

This is untrue, and terrible advice.

hotspur

Which bit? I know who he is and know he can beat $20 sit n go level games with no problems. Also I fundamentally believe that those micro buy in games are total monkey fests in which players just call all in cause they couldn't care less about the buy in and aren't serious about their game. It might ne slightly hyperbolic to say play money sit n go's are harder to win than $320 ones but they are harder than $20 ones in my opinion, try it out, go to Stars and try to win a play money sit n go, there'll be 3-4 all ins 1st hand. It is defintely true that more random all in play goes on at microlimit sit n go's than at $20 sit n go's so they are massively more dangerous in terms of total donk lucksacking on you.

roryc

RoundTower wrote:

This is untrue, and terrible advice.

Have to disagree with you here. I would consider $1 STT's to be a lot harder than $25 and $50. I find as you move up the levels the standard (usually) increases, and the donkeys gradually show up less and less. I would feel more confident at a table full of pro's than I would at a play money table.

RoundTower

roryc wrote:

Have to disagree with you here. I would consider $1 STT's to be a lot harder than $25 and $50. I find as you move up the levels the standard (usually) increases, and the donkeys gradually show up less and less. I would feel more confident at a table full of pro's than I would at a play money table.

How do you get on online then?

bohsman

I dont understand why anyone wants to play against good player, put me on a table with donkeys who dont care about money every day of the week.

Ste05

I think there's valid points on each side. I think it won't be easier to win $25 or $50 STT's though. because of the increased average skill level of the players. Although I think that the $1 tourneys are a bit of a donkey fest (which is good, but just not worth the variance), however if you moved up to $5 or $10 tournaments then you should be fine.

Although Hotspur's advice seems very player specific, so maybe the OP should listen to someone that personally knows him. However in the generality, I'd suggest moving up to the $5+.50 or $10+$1 or level. (Not the $5+$1 - rake issues)

Hectorjelly

roryc wrote:

Have to disagree with you here. I would consider $1 STT's to be a lot harder than $25 and $50. I find as you move up the levels the standard (usually) increases, and the donkeys gradually show up less and less. I would feel more confident at a table full of pro's than I would at a play money table.

Yeah I completey agree with this. I was on a bad run last night at $1 $2 so moved up to $25 $50nl, - playing with Ivey et al is easy!

Dub13

bohsman wrote:

I dont understand why anyone wants to play against good player, put me on a table with donkeys who dont care about money every day of the week.

Boyne Valley Hotel

cardshark202

roryc wrote:

I would feel more confident at a table full of pro's than I would at a play money table.

Quote of the year so far.

RoundTower

hotspur wrote:

Which bit? I know who he is and know he can beat $20 sit n go level games with no problems. Also I fundamentally believe that those micro buy in games are total monkey fests in which players just call all in cause they couldn't care less about the buy in and aren't serious about their game. It might ne slightly hyperbolic to say play money sit n go's are harder to win than $320 ones but they are harder than $20 ones in my opinion, try it out, go to Stars and try to win a play money sit n go, there'll be 3-4 all ins 1st hand. It is defintely true that more random all in play goes on at microlimit sit n go's than at $20 sit n go's so they are massively more dangerous in terms of total donk lucksacking on you.

I think if the results he posted are typical of his play at the $3 SNGs, he will be a losing player at $20 SNGs on the same site. Regardless of how long he has been playing cards.

I'm in a play money sit and go on Stars at the moment. It is number 21370608 for anyone interested in watching. Unfortunately I don't have time to play 100 of them today, but if I even come third that will be better than I do on average in real money SNGs.

cardshark202

RoundTower wrote:

I think if the results he posted are typical of his play at the $3 SNGs, he will be a losing player at $20 SNGs on the same site. Regardless of how long he has been playing cards.

I'm in a play money sit and go on Stars at the moment. It is number 21370608 for anyone interested in watching. Unfortunately I don't have time to play 100 of them today, but if I even come third that will be better than I do on average in real money SNGs.

Ha I'm watching this now. You're a sick man. I see you're being run over by 'rochelle1969' at the moment.

I don't know which is worse, playing a play money sng or watching one.

RoundTower

Results: I bubbled.

Based on this admittedly small sample, I'd like to propose a prop bet with hotspur. We haven't had one of these in a while.

I bet I can do better over 100 play money SNGs than you can do over 100 $20s. I'll give you 2 to 1. I'll let you have €2000 in action. You should have no trouble finding backers on this forum.

hotspur

There is surely a thresehold of completely random players beyond which it makes it difficult to play properly unless you are sitting very patiently in a cash game. If you are finding 4 other players for every flop in a sit n go you are going to need a nice dollop of luck to take down the pots, your ability to put a player on a range is out the window as is your ability to take a player off a medium hand or win through strong betting.

Obviously it isn't beneficial to play poker against solid players over weak players, but it beneficial to play against a table which *generally* has players who are playing the game. This distinction obviously doesn't apply to the difference between $1/$2 - $25/$50 cash games , it applies to the difference between $1-$5 and $10 or $20 sit n go's.

Everyone wants a total donkey or 2 at their table but 8 is too much because it is kind of culumative randomness if they all stay in pots. Let's say beyond 3 or 4 there's a "diminishing marginal donkey return"
Once you're at the fairly low level where at least the players are playing poker then this doesn't apply anymore and then of course it's a stupid assertion that you want to play with better players. But you want to play poker first, not lotteries.

Also I'm sure you guys will agree that it doesn't take great ability to compete profitably at €20 sit n go's on certain sites, and that if you're posting on and reading a poker forum then you're probably undertargeting yourself at $5 sit n go's unless it's a financial issue.

hotspur

RoundTower wrote:

I bet I can do better over 100 play money SNGs than you can do over 100 $20s. I'll give you 2 to 1. I'll let you have €2000 in action. You should have no trouble finding backers on this forum.

That's a good prop bet all right, fair play to you, I'll have a think about it because I would rather eat my own foot than play 100 $20 sit n go's, but I like the value of the bet a lot. I'll let you know tomorrow.

roryc

hotspur wrote:

Everyone wants a total donkey or 2 at their table but 8 is too much because it is kind of culumative randomness if they all stay in pots. Let's say beyond 3 or 4 there's a "diminishing marginal donkey return"

Couldn't have put it better myself As I said before I feel most comfortable at a table with mostly decent players and one or two donkeys thrown in for good measure. What I meant by the whole pro's thing, is that If you are at a table full of very good players, you can build up an image, you can outplay them, outwit them, you can build up a profile on each of them, and play accordingly. Fair enough, they might simply be better than you, and still demolish you, but at least its not a crapshoot.

If you are at a table full of donkeys, its usually, fold, fold, fold, ACES! ah, push, call, call, call........goodnight. This is what I found I was doing at low level STT's, but as I move up levels I'm finding that there is a lot more play involved.

Also, that prop bet sounds brilliant! I'd get a piece of it if I had the patience for 100 STT's

Oh and Hector, tell Ivey he owes me $50...

NickyOD

100 definitely isn't anywhere near enough. Come back to us after 1000 and see what your ROI% is then. You need to aim to finish ITM aver 40% of the time in 9 handers.

Iago

19/15/13 over the last 100 $20 games I played

I'd have to improve dramatically on that to consider getting involved in a prop bet

staringelf

Iago wrote:

19/15/13 over the last 100 $20 games I played

I'd have to improve dramatically on that to consider getting involved in a prop bet

47% ITM is pretty damn good. good luck improving over that. i know its only a 100 game sample but that's excellent even for $20 sngs.

Iago

It's ok, can definitely be improved on though, I need to play more $25's and $50s though so I probably won't improve it!

My $25's aren't so great, far too many stupid mistakes and lack of thinking.

I'm at 137/124/109 over 900 games which is around 41% or so, again could do with a lot of improvement. Bigger sample than $20s so probably closer to a true rate.

roryc

I recorded 11/4/14 over 40 STT's in the last two weeks. I'm only playing at $15 though, and 40 is no clear indicator to anything really.

Hey Iago, how did you record these, pokertracker? I only know my stats because I kept a record of my games last week in a word doc. If I start playing regularly I will probably invest in one of these.

RoundTower

Hotspur wasn't interested in the end. I thought he might offer to put jaCques in, which would have been a nice double whammy, but no.

But I'm still up for it. So I'd like to throw this challenge open to anyone who feels it is hard to win tournament poker against muppets. We can arrange to play less SNGs if you like. Anyone? Roryc, I'm looking your way...