Quote:
Originally Posted by jujubeez
This whole debate over actual ROI is stupid.
Both sides are dumb on this roi debate. After the bet is over we will have a decent size sample to see how close his ROI was to his historical ROI. If he ends up playing like 10k 9 handed games the range will be within about plus or minus 2 percent. Obviously these conditions and parameters will change his ROI, but lets wait until the bets over to talk about running above and below expectation.
Also if you want to talk about his historical ROI at the 55s, please don't include the numbers after this bet started. Because when people are saying he is running below expectation, and you use the number included in this bet to bring down his historical average, it loses its validity. Before this bet started he was averaging historically 6% at the 9 handed sngs at the 55s or 3.54 cents a game. During this bet he has averaged 1.20 cents a game.
Clearly he is below what he was averaging. But its too early to tell if this from different conditions or variance, sample size etc.....
Let the bet play out and we will have a great size sample to analyze and see which one is the reason.
Also this bet isn't over, plenty of games left. Any one who doesn't think its possible to put u 15,000 dollars in 2k games doesn't understand the positive side of variance especially when playing 45 and 18 handed. That beeing said i am a bit concerned for spacegravy, but i hope he does it.
irregardless of how he is actually running though, would you not agree that its safe to say he is going to perform under his lifetime roi due to the conditions? as in, even if he IS below expectation, expecting someone to put in this much volume and vs such good opponents, it is BEYOND ******ed to think they arent going to perform below their lifetime ROI. and with a GOOD roi at these levels being ~5%, even playing at a -.5% difference is going to have a HUGE effect on his results.