I think I need a boost...

[Talking Poker]

Well, that's just it. I could play 5 in a row and win or lose all 5, but that doens't mean I can or can't beat the game. 5 isn't any kind of sample.

I'm confident that I can beat the $500s, but I'm wondering how much my ROI would drop, and if it's worth the larger swings to grind out what may not amount to any additional winnings (and could be losings) at the end of the day.

Similar to what Windbreaker said, and I think it's good advice.

I think I will continue to primarily play the 200s, but keep an eye on the 500 lobbies. If I see a weak player sit down, I'll take a shot.

Zy - your boy Adrian is a HU SNG specialist, right? What's his screen name?

[Talking Poker]

Oh... and the other consideration here that I didn't really mention... If the reason I am considering moving up is to make more money at the end of the day (and I don't even know what it is, but I guess it's that - I just kind of feel like I "should"), there is another option.

Rather than play the same couple of hours per day that I play now but at higher stakes, I could get off my ass and play MORE at my current levels.

938 matches in 2008 is about 10 per day on average. I could focus on getting that number up to 15 or 20, and then reevaluate down the road sometime.

[Wes]

Zybomb's friend is Pokts on stars

[Talking Poker]

Damn.

(Sharkscope)

[Zybomb]

If you're saying damn now, You should have seen him b4 this past month....

[Windbreaker]

Oh, almost forgot about this:




2 player SnG, top 1 itm.

return on investment : 15.0%
kelly criterion : 15.79%

return on investment : 10.0%
kelly criterion : 10.33%

return on investment : 5.0%
kelly criterion : 5.22%


Cliffnotes on kelly criterion for those unfamilar:

The formula specifies the percentage of the current bankroll to be bet at each iteration of the game. In addition to maximizing the growth rate in the long run, the formula has the added benefit of having zero risk of ruin; the formula will never allow a loss of 100% of the bankroll on any bet. An assumption of the formula is that currency and bets are infinitely divisible, which is not a concern for practical purposes if the bankroll is large enough.

[Talking Poker]

I need to read more about this, but this is very interesting - I think the bold above is what I should be focusing on (we all should, in theory).

Thanks. +Rep.

For those interested:

[Talking Poker]

I can not get over these numbers. I keep going over it different ways, and I keep coming out with results that tell me I am a puss.

If I am reading this right, let's say you have a $1000 bankroll. If your HU SNG ROI is 10%, what this is saying is that you should be betting 10% (I'm going to round all numbers down - this almost exactly covers the rake anyway) of your bankroll to maximize your growth rate, or in this case, playing $100+5 matches. By doing so, there is a 1/3 chance that you will halve your roll to $500 before doubling it to $2000 (implying that there is twice as good a chance of you doubling your roll before cutting it in half).

Can that be right?

Taking it a step further, many people prefer to bet half of the optimal Kelly numbers, because doing so will yield 75% of the return, but with much less volatility. So, in our case of Mr. 10% ROI and $1000 roll, he should play $50+2.50 matches to be conservative.

That STILL amazes me.

Another example for the low-rollers: You have a $500 roll and a 5% ROI in HU SNGs (you play while sleeping, in other words). Kelly says you should be playing $25 SNGs, but to be ultra-conservative, you play in $10 ones, with virtually no chance of busting your roll.

Running my numbers (only counting my "virtual" bankroll - what I have online), Kelly says I should be playing $2k SNGs for optimal growth. The more conservative approach would be to play $1k ones.

Can that be right?

One thing not factored in here is that my actual ROI when playing at $1k or $2k limits would likely be MUCH less than the number I am using in these calculations - in fact, it could very well be a negative number, which throws everything out the window. If your ROI is negative (losing players), the optimal bet for you is of course $0.

Still though, everything about this tells me I should move up.

If I'm misinterpreted anything in the math or what it means, some please point out where.

[Talking Poker]

I know how to read graphs, thanks.

And yeah, he's playing at a level that I don't think I would ever be comfortable with. I'd love to chat with him sometime about this HU SNG progression. Hook it up.