Hey guys,

What are your thoughts on this?

Is this common or what do you think about that variance?



theginger45 on sharkscope

https://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-S...rs/theginger45

If you play big fields with a vast range of buyins then a 10k sample is almost meaningless. This graph would probably look a bit more stable if it showed buyins instead of €.

Well...yeah. obv. If he'd crushed 5's for a cpl of years and switched to hsmtt but that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see? Surprises me in more than one way.

I used to think winning 5k+ mtt's was a pretty good indicator.

Skickat från min Moto G (5S) Plus via Tapatalk

The last 8 mtts he played are between 2.20$ and 44$. That's a 20x spread, and you'll typically play more volume at the lower stakes. That's just in the last 8 tournies, it's not unthinkable the actual spread is bigger. When you get 9th in a big field 2$ for 44$ then brick your 44$ tourney, your ROI is 2100% but your profits are -2$. When your buyin spread is 10x or bigger it's almost impossible to profit if you're having a bad run in the higher buyins.

5000 tournies is a sample you can conclude some things from if the fields are small and the buyins are all the same. But outside of 180man grinders that's just not reality.

Since this is my graph I figure I'll jump in.

I had a massive downswing because I played like crap over a large sample, not because of variance.

My actual performance relative to my potential peak has fluctuated so much during my career that I don't think my graph is even remotely representative of MTT variance, and since I live in Vegas full-time now and haven't played on these sites in almost a year, I don't think it would be representative of the current MTT landscape anyway.

Graph doesn't look very standard

Yeah, it isn't. Play bad over a large sample like I did, you get bad results.

Well hello ginger,
Love that you comment yourself. Thank you so much.

Okay, I see.
If you don't mind me asking, in what way did you play bad?

Too me you seem like a very competent player, so I can't really wrap my head around it. That's all.

There are a small number of good regs who break even or lose over samples like this, but there are a hell of a lot more bad regs who go on huge heaters over samples like this. The people who heat are the ones who tend to keep playing, hence their being so many people who think they are pros who have no real business being full timers (or rather, they play far too high for their skill level).

Looking at BB/100 and CEV is a much more reliable way to measure ones quality of play. Many of the superstars in this game will have insanely over EV CEV graphs at the higher end of their buy in spectrum (they will still tell you they run bad though and you'll never see that graph), making them look far better than they actually are. Some of them are still true beasts though. On the flip side, there are a bunch of players who you've rarely heard of who have similar EV but the green line doesn't follow suit.

Long story short, results do matter but take them with a pinch of salt.

I would not call him a good reg, he is profitable in lowerstakes (up 44K) but still very low ROI. In higher stakes he is not profitable and down 30K. Maybe he ran bad in higher stakes but he might aswell have ran good and still down 30k.

Your assumptions are meaningless. His sample is insufficient at high stakes (2k games > $100, @ 2031 average entrants.)

Ginger has shown humility in his response earlier in this thread. His results don't have to necessarily reflect on his theoretical understanding of the game. There was likely a disconnect happening on the tables, be that too many tables, lack of focus or a myriad of mental leaks.

As you can see for a solid winning reg the 95% confidence interval over 10k games is still showing a huge discrepancy. Anywhere from near break even to crushing. This simulation also assumes that you get to play the exact same buyin over and over. In reality variance is even bigger because we're playing different buyins and different field sizes and at the end of the day a large part of your "success" as an MTT reg is what part of your buyin range and field size you run good in. Another problem is that while there's tons of $10-$20 bowls you can play in a given week, there's not many $109s. So if you play a huge range of buyins how you run in the few big buyin tournaments is going to have a disproportionate effect on your overall $EV realization.

Long winded way of saying MTTs are a huge crapshot and that's why everyone loves them.

Combination of too many tables, changing too many aspects of my game at once, and just not having a good enough grasp of theory. I'm a much better player now that I was then - I just wasn't that good. I was decent, but I'd say my ROI now (if I were still grinding online) would be triple what it was.

Yeah, this is fair over that sample. I definitely played in some games I wasn't +EV in, as well as running reasonably bad over a certain sample at the top end. I think my A-game would have been a solid winner, but I just wasn't anywhere close to my A-game for much of the time.

If I played the same sample of games nowadays, I'd back myself to make probably 5-10x as much money. But if I hadn't been through the learning experiences I went through, I might not be the same player now.

MTTs are definitely a crapshoot to a great extent. Embracing that reality will get you further than any other mental game change you could make.

Sounds very delusional, guessing and trowing number on how would you perform in nowadays games, when you haven't played in a recent environment for a year.
Don't believe your own hype.

The hate on this forum at every turn is just outrageous. This forum is just toxic.

or it could be a prop bet