edit: just bothered reading the actual thread.
LOL at OP talking trash to lenn for saying 30% is unsustainable. nothing funnier than someone playing 3$ sngs trashing someone for being bad ♦
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
37
Posts
14
Users
0
Reactions
3,827
Views
Originally posted by ihufa
edit: just bothered reading the actual thread.
hehehe, classic!
Originally posted by ihufa
edit: just bothered reading the actual thread.LOL at OP talking trash to lenn for saying 30% is unsustainable. nothing funnier than someone playing 3$ sngs trashing someone for being bad ♦
You must be one of those degenerates who cant move down in stakes when they hit a losing stretch, isnt it? Otherwise you wouldnt make such a dumb coment on buy ins.
30% is not sustainable for STTs 100 games doesn't mean too much If I were you I'd just keep playing on the new level (as long as you're rolled) while studying, because it should be very beatable, you're probably running badly more due to variance than to bad play (experience says it's usually a bit of both though =p)
A 30% roi is not impossible at all at the low levels. Maybe I ran good, maybe not, however I am not the only one with a RoI like this at these games, others also have it over a bigger sampe size.
Hey kubernetes, I would just keep on grinding (following BRM rules). I think it is impossible to drop 40% in roi between two buy-in levels. I guess you were a winning player on the 3.25s running very good and now still a winning player (probably bit less) running bad. About the rake issue, I thought ROI was calculated including rake, so your 30% should be calculated including rake as well. Not that that discussion matters much to your initial question...
Thanks for your post, lpdlamei. Yes, I prolly ran good, and I know now I am running bad for sure, too many suck outs when al in, so frustratng. But also I have to improve my play, no doubt. I am just learning ICM in more deep. Believe it or not I beat the 3.25 having just some broad guidelines on ICM and avoiding push/fold as much as possible. Can't do that on the 6s.
The rake issue was because someone posted the weird idea that the rake decreases your roi in the long run.
Have a good one.
Hi kubernetes
From the tone of some of your responses, I sincerely think the biggest part of your game to work on is the mental part.
You've started making assumptions based on small sample sizes, become over confident in your abilities, are refusing to be see the value in some of the comments (which I can understand when statements are couched as absolutes - but this doesn't mean they are substantially incorrect) and have reacted poorly to some very experienced and well meaning advice.
Whilst you seem to have the positive attitude that your game needs work, you are missing some pretty important points and reacting badly. Unless you are unbelieveably talented you are unlikely to be able to survive in the game long term without being more open to this advice.
Variance will kick you around like nothing else. You are currently in the early, early throws of experiencing the reality of variance. Some of the replies you have so far received have been blunt attempts to get you to appreciate that what you have so far gone through is at such a small sample as to be essentially meaningless. You cannot make any real assumptions on the effectiveness of your game at any level unless you've played many times more SnGs.
Good luck with getting to grips with swingaments.
yeah op is kinda rude....30 roi on 6 max .... i definately think is not sustainable and if i were you i wouldnt talk trash to all the people who are trying to help you...btw nevermind ihufa he s a good guy(spammer) and he definatley has more experience than you.... i have a roi of 27 percent on 3.40 on stars for 1800 sngs and i still don t think it s my actual roi....and for sngs you can be a winning player and after 500 sngs still actual loose that s why we have this thing called brm ..Gl i had 1000 sngs break even stretches ....(yeah i m one of those degenerates who cant move down in stakes when they hit a loosing stretch...and that s even an idiot thing to say if you think that loosing stretches arent a reason to move down ...the only reasons for moving down are bad play for your actual level and brm)
and actual rake is calculated based on roi... if you understand the concept of roi.... let s see if you were playing 3 dollar buy in with 2 dollar rake and would have a roi calculated based on the buy in of 30 percent you would win almost a dollar for each sng but loose 1 dollar due to rake...so when you calculate your actual roi you should consider the rake too;
P.S believe me when i tell you this because i have an economics license diploma...
To those saying I am being rude, and close minded, let me retort.
Yes, I tend to react rudely when I see smart ass on liner posts like "30% is not sustainable". ORLY? thenks for the heads up, buddy!
That kind of advice is pure trash IMHO. What do they expect? they want me to start chasing them with questions? Look, I don't care if the person who post that kind of useless one liner posts is an experienced high stakes winning player. To me he is just another troll.
Secondly, I am open minded. So open minded as it hurts my brain when I go through poorly reasoned posts.
And jesus f'ing christ at the roi/rake issue. See what I say? If I were a total clueless player I would be making calculations now bassed in wrong assumptions. The rake is part of your investment so the %RoI, as calculated by sharkscope, is what it is. I don't see the probem with that.
kuber,
All responses even if short are correct, If you ask for help, if that is what you want then you will get some good responses from some very good sng players.
But lashing out at people will not get you help. You need to wise up poker is dog eat dog, no one here needs to help you find your leaks but many, me included will help.
I hope you see the light
Lennonac
I'm a Cash Games player but I'm unsure why you seem to think rake has no effect on your ROI.
As I understand it your ROI would mean a different thing for different levels of rake. See my example for 0% rake and 13% rake......
$3 sng with $0 rake. 30% ROI = $0.9
$3 sng with $0.4 rake. 30% ROI = $1.02
From my very brief example its clear that rake has an effect on ROI, and thus I do not understand your statement;
"Yes, I am saying the rake has no influence in the RoI given how the RoI it is usually calcuated."
Yes, it does. To achieve the same ROI with a higher rake level you would have to be winning substantially more. If you are calculating ROI without the rake then you are not actually calculating your real return on investment.
Rake always has an effect, Poker is a game of small edges and the rake is often pretty huge in comparison. Remove the rake from NL25 for example and I think there would only be a tiny sample of people whose winrates would not at least double.
Geez; nobody here has said that the roi or the rake should be the same at different levels.
Your second example shows how the RoI is and has been always calculated in SnGs. My 30% roi in the 3.25s of course incudes rake. Dunno what the hell does rake have to do with an eventual decrease in my roi at the 3.25.
kuber,
seriously you are doing yourself no favours. Do you realise you are just making an arse out of yourself. just admit you dont know what you are doing.
No one will care if you dont understand something, we are all here to learn...well except you it seems
such ROI is very much possible. i have 30% + at 10$ both hu and 45 man sng over a decent sample
edit: yes of course i include rake in calculations..
Originally posted by kubernetes
Geez; nobody here has said that the roi or the rake should be the same at different levels.Your second example shows how the RoI is and has been always calculated in SnGs. My 30% roi in the 3.25s of course incudes rake. Dunno what the hell does rake have to do with an eventual decrease in my roi at the 3.25.
wowowow.
1) Imagine how much you would be winning if you wern't paying $0.25 rake per sng. Nows that huge aight?
2) The other players posting in this thread merely think that through their experience that this level of return is unsustainable in your game type in the super long run. They just put it bluntly is all.
THATS IT. If the rake was lower then they think that as a % of Buy In, 30% might just be achievable. Its a smaller $ won per sng and havn't payed 1/4 of your actual won$perSng in rake to the poker room.
And yes of course rake is different depending on the Buy-In you are playing.
Enjoy your time at PS, just improve your game and play some more and I'm sure you'll start getting a better return on your new Buy-In level.
Originally posted by lennonac
kuber,
seriously you are doing yourself no favours. Do you realise you are just making an arse out of yourself. just admit you dont know what you are doing.
No one will care if you dont understand something, we are all here to learn...well except you it seems
I am here to learn too. I dont want to be an arse, lol,. However, you said this:
Originally posted by lennonac
30% roi is not sustainable due to rake so I would retract your statement
You are saying that the main reason of the unsustainability of a 30% RoI is the rake. I have doubts and I suspect that's wrong.
Originally posted by DaPhunk
Originally posted by kubernetes
Geez; nobody here has said that the roi or the rake should be the same at different levels.Your second example shows how the RoI is and has been always calculated in SnGs. My 30% roi in the 3.25s of course incudes rake. Dunno what the hell does rake have to do with an eventual decrease in my roi at the 3.25.
wowowow.
1) Imagine how much you would be winning if you wern't paying $0.25 rake per sng. Nows that huge aight?
I get your point, and i havent got any doubt about it the whole time. Sure I can wish rake was ower but this is a tough world, not gonna happen.
2) The other players posting in this thread merely think that through their experience that this level of return is unsustainable in your game type in the super long run. They just put it bluntly is all.
THATS IT. If the rake was lower then they think that as a % of Buy In, 30% might just be achievable. Its a smaller $ won per sng and havn't payed 1/4 of your actual won$perSng in rake to the poker room.
And yes of course rake is different depending on the Buy-In you are playing.
Dunno who introduced in this thread the notion of roi without including fee. That has created a f'ing mess.
I see what some posters are actually saying is that the rake IS A DECISIVE FACTOR to determine that a ROI 30% is impossible over a big sample (5k+ games?).
Is rake the main reason of the impossibilty of a 30% roi in the long run? I am not convinced. Maybe the games are tougher, or whatever, but I wouldnt blame the rake, since I have seen players in the past having big rois in bigger samples under similar rake structures.
Enjoy your time at PS, just improve your game and play some more and I'm sure you'll start getting a better return on your new Buy-In level.
thanks
Well, see what happens when you try to use fancy words when all you want to say is "you are just running good".