Ah sorry misread your post

when the graph is titled "chance of a downswing" what constitutes a downswing? is it 20 buy-ins, 40 buy-ins, 60 buy-ins, etc? If I missed it in the thread my apologies.

can someone help me with inputting these results so i can analyze them, i'm having trouble working out the ITM % and stuff like that, and what do i put for ROI? i just want to analyze these results.

1.25 SnGs tested: 1000

1 prize: $4.50 x 44 = $198.00
2 prize: $2.70 x 95 = $256.50
3 prize: $1.80 x 187 = $336.60

ITM: 326
OTHER: 674

won = $791.10 invested $1250 = $458.90 lost.

$2.25 SnGs tested: 500

1 prize: $9.00 x 17 = $153
2 prize: $5.40 x 56 = $302.40
3 prize: $3.60 x 140 = $504.00

ITM: 213
OTHER: 287

$5.50 SnGs tested: 250

1 prize: $22.50 x 6 = $135
2 prize: $13.50 x 23 = $310.50
3 prize: $9.00 x 49 = $441.00

ITM: 78
OTHER: 172

won = $886.50 invested $1375 = $488.50 lost.

$10+1 SnGs tested: 125

1 prize: $45 x 2 = $90
2 prize: $27 x 18 = $486
3 prize: $18 x 32 = $576

ITM: 52
OTHER: 73

won = $1152 invested $1375 = $223 lost.

$20+2 SnGs tested: 75

1 prize: $90 x 11 = $990
2 prize: $54 x 4 = $216
3 prize: $36 x 20 = $720

ITM: 35
OTHER: 40

won = $1926 invested $1650 = $276 profit.

$50+5 SnGs tested: 50

1 prize: $225 x 6 = $1350
2 prize: $135 x 12 = $1620
3 prize: $90 x 7 = $630

ITM: 25
OTHER: 25

won = $3600 invested $2750 = $850 profit.

TOTAL GAMES: 2000
TOTAL ITM: 729
TOTAL INVESTED: $9525
TOTAL WON: $9315
TOTAL PROFIT: -$210

Import into PT/HM

i want it to be analyzed by this spreadsheet

nice thread

Pretty awesome thread, thanks Shrooma.

reviving this antique to commend OP... well done!

I have been browsing a couple threads in this forum after some self-doubt in myself and my game (caused by an extended break-even stretch), when I ran across the LipoFund's Well thread and video. Having read the FAQ and Strategy threads, I am somewhat conflicted because it seems that LipoFund was/is a well respected player, but some of the things he said in his video go against what I have learned from this forum thus far.

Seeing as I dont think this belongs in the STT BBV thread, I figure this thread is good enough to post in since I'm not sure if these questions are worthy of their own thread:

1. About 31 minutes into his video, LipoFund makes some remarks which I honestly dont understand. He says that the 45-mans and 180-mans on Stars are much, much better (softer) than the single table SnGs. This I can understand, it is what he says after that which has me confused. Speaking about the 45s and 180s he says, "the variance is honestly not much worse because the money is so much better". How is the variance not much worse when you have significantly more people involved, and how is the money much better if the buyin remains equal for everyone and there is no overlay?

2. He goes on to say that these multi-table SnGs are the most profitable game on Stars and that a 40% ROI is "definately sustainable" (or about "$5 a game" as he says a few seconds later.) I dont even know how to address those statements. Everything I have learned from this forum over the years makes me believe that such a winrate is improbable for the long term, and certainly not sustainable. Have I been wrong about this all along?

I don't really know anything about MTTs, and so about Q2, but I expect that in the quote in Q1 he really meant that the downswings aren't much worse. You would expect greater variance I believe (in the actual statistics definition of variance), but because you are making more per game by having a higher ROI, the bad end of variance may often only mean winning less rather than losing money.

Hmm... yes but that would have to be under the assumption that your ROI clearly is much higher than in single-table SnGs. Which I'm not necessarily doubting, just saying that 40% seems pretty damn high and unrealistic to maintain in the long term.

Surprised that no one else has anything to say on the matter.

In general, more people in a tourney = higher attainable ROI, so yes the attainable ROIs for 45 and 180 mans are going to be higher than those of 9-mans.

40% ROI doesn't seem unrealistic at first glance because those tourneys take significantly longer than a 9-man. If you had a similar ROI (or even just slightly higher) to STT's it wouldn't be worth playing MTT's at all.

Also, given that these graphs have been around a couple years I think people who recommend 100 BI bankrolls are way off. Even with 5% ROI an 80 BI bankroll is only a 2.5% risk of ruin. If you're willing to drop down you could easily make do with a 50 BI bankroll, even less if you've got a higher ROI.

AFAIK that video was made right before the 45's got really tough to beat for a good clip.

why are the lower ROI players more likely to be at the higher extremes of profitability than the higher ROI players according to the probability distributions of profitability for various winrates?