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: