Howdy Y'all,

Serious Rec enthusiast here who as been playing for roughly 18 years. I started out like a lot of people in the moneymaker era playing online SNG's and MTT's - back then games were soft, I mashed SNG's and did very well with MTT's. I eventually transitioned to cash and then live cash, and went exclusively Live in 2008. Recently, I've been back into the online world (after a longggg layoff) with Pokerstars home games. Fields are generally straightforward if not soft, and I have had some success but my outcomes are not near my lifetime tourney stats through a decent sample of about 160 ish tourneys in the past 3 months. I feel like me being in the hole and my negative ROI is more indicative of me running poorly in the bigger buy ins of 100-250 dollars, vs. mashing and running well in the 50 dollar and below buy ins but let me know if you can decipher anything from my numbers here.

Lifetime (all results)- Sample Size roughly 519 games

Avg Buy In: $180
Range: $10-$1,200
Cashed 27%
ROI 28%
Final Tables: 117
Top 3 Finishes: 84
Top 3 as percent of cashes: 60%

Recent Results (160 ish games)
Avg Buy in: $68
Range: $10-$250 Dollars
Cashed:21%
ROI: -20%
Final Tables: 30
Top 3 Finishes: 20
Top 3 as % of Cashes: 67%

Is this a case of variance? Are the games just much harder than they were years ago (obviously some truth to that but I've also gotten better and adjusted) - What are the positives and the potential issues with my outcomes that you can see on the face of it? I am wondering if there are some serious MTT Grinders out there that could weigh in just with this data set alone?

Appreciate any and all comments.

GP

The range of your buyins is big. Would you get more out of your stats if you split that down?
Are you playing at the same time of day every time you play? I found that affecting my ROI.

519 tournaments
117 final tables
84 top 3 finishes

What.

Oh ...home games, so like 20-80 runners type sngs?

Sample size is so small there’s every chance u ran hot and now u are running average

And it’s not “some truth that the games are harder”....the games are much much harder and also now require a dedication of time and effort to either strict gameplay observation skills /note taking or ...sophisticated level of HUD development/understanding of stats

Not to mention all the GTO/Pio/ICM etc etc type study that’s required now to win, none of which u needed in moneymaker era where good poker instincts went a hell of a long way

its a mix, some are 20-150 type SNG, and some are live events with 1-250 people,

and some are old school online tourneys with 300-500 runners or whatever (low buy ins)

Either way - appreciate the feedback

For awhile I thought this wouldn't be really relevant at 25-250 dollar buy ins but boy was a wrong about that. Dude was using a HUD in a 25 dollar home game club with 150 runners. lol. totally agree it's much harder. It's amazing how sticky some players are too.

Note taking is certainly a strong suit but I refuse to use HUD's as I think that's cheating even though I know technically it's not - I am completely against HUD's and all that crap. I saying that, probably not the best to grind online with a disadvantage knowing I won't use them.

BTW another question - what is a "non small sample size" - i've asked this many times and no one ever seems to answer.

See - no one ever answers this question.

Probably because they are puzzled by the question. Non just means not