Quote:
Originally Posted by leoslayer
Situation A or B? I don't know I'd think that if you avg 70 in either case you should win the same amt long term just like if you had a 4%roi in sng's you should win the same long term.
This is completely flawed. ROI is not a good comparison to a raw score. Because ROI takes other factors into account, namely, strength of field. If the strength of the field you entered was stronger, and your ROI remained at 4%, then you got better at poker.
All the football and poker analogies are pretty pointless though. We can just stick with simple math to make the point.
How do you not understand that "shooting 70" has no context? I mean it's 2 under par, but par is meaningless. What matters is the other competitors' scores.
You don't understand distribution if you think that someone who always shoots 70 will win the same amount of tournies in two different groups where the average scores are noticeably disparate.
HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?
When I was 7 I was the best baseball player on my street. In 5th and 6th grade I played up a year. In high school I didn't make the team.
I didn't get worse at baseball (well, I forgot to grow until late in high school - which hurt), it's just the talent pool got a lot larger and better from that of my neighborhood of like 30 houses.
Actually, I will stick to the poker ROI analogy.
If your ROI is 4%, in which sit-n-go will you expect to perform better over a large sample?
SNG #1
You: 4% ROI
Player 2: 5%
3: 5%
4: 4%
5: 6%
6: 7%
7: 4%
8: 6%
9: 5%
SNG #2
You: 4% ROI
#2: 0%
3: -2%
4: -40%
5: -10%
6: 2%
7: 1%
8: -14%
9: -4%
ZOMG YOU SHUD TOTALLY EXPECT TO WIN AT THE SAME CLIP BECUZ YOUR ROI IS 4% IN BOTH CASES DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP.