MollysPoker.com

[Blackize]

I have played 16 10 SnG's on party over the last 2 days. I have placed in 9 with
4 3rds, 1 2nd, and 4 1sts. Busted out on the bubble 4 times, and gone out in
5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th once each. The 7 8 and 9 were pure stupidity on my part.
This is slightly more than a 50% place rate and 125 dollars profit.

My questions are:
1) Is a 50% place rate good, average, or in need of improvement?
2) My placing distribution seems odd since I either finish 4th 3rd or 1st most
of the time. Is this normal?
3) How can I move from placing in third so often to placing in 2nd more?


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[AcesUP]

16 $10 SNG's on party is nothing, NOTHING, the last 2 questions are irrelevant
since u have nothing resembling a sample size, and the answer to the first
question is if your placing anything above 40% then your doing good, and 50% is
extremely high, even for 10+1.

On Apr 21 2005 12:31 AM, Blackize wrote:

[dentcat]

You need a much larger sample of SNG's than 16.

During my past 300 SnG's I have had these two extremes: ITM 14x with 8 wins, 4
runner ups and 2 thirds, and ITM 2x, both 3rd.

A 50% ITM should get you around .5 buyins per SnG (how I measure things to keep
it all relative), which is OK, if you keep it up over the long run. I'd say its
above average since there are a ton of awful players, but I've been inching past
60% and don't consider myself above a 20$ yet.

As far as getting more 2nds, if that is your objective, wait for the two
remaining stacks to go at it if the blinds allow it. I've found that most
players are relieved to make the money and play incredibly loose. I've rarely
been three handed more than 10 hands. Otherwise push in and cross your fingers.

On Apr 21 2005 12:31 AM, Blackize wrote:

[Patti Beadles]

100 SNGs is noise, and 16 is absolutely nothing. You really need
several hundred SNGs under your belt to get a good feel for what
your win rate is.

-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | This is the problem with the
http://www.pattib.org/ | Bellagio... you have to deal with an
Check out www.tribe.net ! | entirely higher class of retard. -SS

[Blackize]

Why is it that when I am just trying to see where Im at the first thing people
say is that my sample size is too small. I know that statistically there is
little significance to these results. However, my feeling is that these stats
are what I can expect over a long period of time, and I am of course curious as
to where my results stand against those of proven winning SnG players. Basically
do I need to improve significantly, keep the same pace, or should I stop playing
altogether and stick to ring games.

9 for 16 is actually closer to 60% and im averaging about .9 buyins per SnG at
the moment. I am well aware that 16 is statistically insignificant, but I am by
far the best player at each of the 16 tables I have played over the last two
days. The fact that I am the best player that I have encountered tells me that I
should be beating these regularly, my post was to determine at what rate I
should be beating them.

Then I asked about my placement distribution because it seems odd that I rarely
place second, but I do recall getting sucked out on a lot by the loose play
after we have made the money. Once it gets heads up I am fine.

I want to at least place in every SnG I play, and once I place, I want to win. A
3rd place finish only awards a 9 dollar profit, while 2nd is 19 and 1st is 39.
The extra 10 dollars between 2nd and 3rd could make a rather large difference in
my hourly rate because right now the amount I make per SnG is equivalent to a
3rd place finish.

On Apr 21 2005 12:31 AM, Blackize wrote:

[Guest]

Blackize,

I am no math guy but logically you are contradicting yourself
somewhat.

You say that there is little statistical significance to the results
but then go on to say that they should reflect your long term
outlook....

I think what they are trying to tell you is that with so few games you
haven't had a wide enough sample to reflect real world conditions.

You may have encountered tables full of very good players and you
should actually be winning at a higher rate, or it could be the other
way around.

You could have just had a run of bad cards and should be able to
expect better hands in the future which would improve your rate.

I think everyone would agree your results so far are pretty good but
you might get unlucky and not be the best player at your next table.

As for you finishing position what I have noticed in my own game is
that when I concentrate on getting ITM rather than going all out to
win a lot of times I end up third because I didn't take some risks
that might have paid off while some short stack that had to take some
big risks ends up with the big stack and has the advantage.

Your milage may vary and as the stockbrokers tell us, past performance
is not necessarily indicative of future results...

Just my zero cents and worth exactly that!



On Thu, 21 Apr 05 6:49:21 GMT, Blackize <[email protected]> wrote:

[Blackize]

I wasnt contradicting myself mathematically. Statistically my sample is too
small, but intuitively I can guess that my current performance should continue.
I think you are right though and my 3rd place finishes are probably due to the
fact that I concentrate on making the money not on having a big stack when I
make the money. Usually Im in good shape when I make the money, but the blinds
are so large that any 2 will do for others and I end up losing good portion of
my stack with hands like K10 vs 37.

On Apr 21 2005 3:36 AM, [email protected] wrote:

[AcesUP]

YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND IF YOU THINK U CAN CONTINUE WITH A 50% WINNING PERCENTAGE
THEN YOUR IN FOR A BIG SURPRISE.

On Apr 21 2005 4:09 AM, Blackize wrote:

[Aboo]

I asked this same question here a while back after playing 30 some odd
SnG's I think and got roughly the same answer, just not with AcesUp
spouting up, I was basically ignored.

I had an almost 80% ITM rating after 30 SnG's... I've played about 60
now and That's down to 59% and holding. I realize now that I'm going
to keep recording but ignore the numbers until I hit 200 SnG's and then
re-evaluate wether I can move up or should stay where I'm at.

Just set a long term goal and hit it, then set another one. In the
mean time, set some short term goals, I.E. your 3rd place finishes. My
goal is to be above 50% at 200 5-10$ SnG's on PStars. I can only play
a couple a week so it's going to take me awhile. My short-term goal is
to improve/mix-up my heads up/short handed play.

Just set the goals and define specific ways to hit them. Just like any
other venture. Don't listen to the moron's all-capping you and
what-not. Just trust your instincts and play your A game all the time.
:)


Good luck at the tables, unless your playing me!

[Blackize]

Ill make another post when I hit 200 SnG's showing where my stats are. I think
you will be in for a big surprise when Im still around 50%. The only way I see
my % going below 50 significantly is if I move up to 20+2's and find that I cant
hack it. Which is doubtful.

On Apr 21 2005 11:20 AM, AcesUP wrote:

[Patti Beadles]

If you think you can consistently do better than 50% ITM, then I
fear that you are in for a rude awakening.

For the last 200 (!) SNGs I've played, I've had an ITM rate of 45%,
and a win rate of 1.5 buyins per tournament. That's a huge winning
streak, but I know that it's unsustainable.

For the last two thousand I've played, my ITM rate is much lower,
and my win rate is much closer to 1.25 buyins per tournament.
That's very closer to the win rate that many of my friends who do
this professionally can sustain.

Bear in mind that the majority of mine are at the $50 and $100
levels. The $10-20 fields are softer, and so you might do a couple
percentage points better down there. 1.9 buyins per tournament or

[Lynx]

[Patti Beadles]

In article <[email protected]>, Lynx <[email protected]> wrote: