When I mark people on betsson I give my highest non profit related marker to players with an ABI > 20 dollars in combination with an roi > 40% and a 2k+ sample. These are pretty much the only guys I bother looking out for in my daily tournaments.
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
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.
Location: Milton, poker capital of the world.. after Wloo that is.
Posts: 9,242
You know trigs, that is simply a thought provoking post and points out how our perceptions change over time. I wonder if we have really been looking at variance correctly?
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.
yup
__________________
I think I'll just get it in bad here and chalk it up to variance.
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?
You know trigs, that is simply a thought provoking post and points out how our perceptions change over time. I wonder if we have really been looking at variance correctly?
i guess that you and i agree that it may not be so cut and dry as others may believe.
i did not limit my comment to famous live pros so i think i am missing your point.
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
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.
Poker Forum Canada offers bonuses for many online poker
sites. Party Poker Bonus
Code is the best Canadian poker bonus with Titan Poker Bonus Code being the second best and last but not least is PokerStars Marketing Code. Clearing the full bonus on each site will add a total of
$1,700 in bonus cash to your online bankroll.
