Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Therevealer, post: 7073033, member: 1045260"] Good evening! So.. to be clear, I am not a 'pro'... I have a full time job and just mess around in polker for a little extra cash. With that being said...in a completely fair and non-rigged situation, I would absolutely have a 30% ROI in $6 and under PLO8 sngs ($6, $3, $1.50, $0.50). Not to digress too much, but regular Omaha is much more popular, and so people at those levels playing PLO8 play it similar to PLO, and it's easy to exploit that. Of course... no pro who needs a decent hourly rate would ever mess with micro sngs.... which is all the more reason that someone who is an expert at the game should beat it with no trouble. I truly believe that 30% ROI would be at the very low end of what a good player should get... but to be clear.. that's not an ROI I have. For the record, I just looked, and my ROI at ACR is roughly +12.1% after roughly 26,000 tournies/sngs. That is deceptive though, because when you're doomswitched, You lose the $30 and $20 Sng you're in, and then win the $16. Move down limits, and you lose the $16 and $11 but win the $5. So on and so forth where some players have a pretty decent ROI, but their actual earnings are low and the earnings slope is straight down because of this effect. As I see it, that's another 'flaw' in the doomswitch algorithm. The concept, of course, is correct. Plenty of players can beat $100-$200 live tournies... but then would run up against a wall at nosebleed stakes like $10k buyins. . However, the difference between a $15, $10, and $5 SNG online is VERY minimal, and a winning player with a large bankroll should be getting pretty similar results from each. When one is doomswitched, they are losing at $6 and $3 tournies and then winning $1 tournies to get them close...but not quite... back to where the balance was when they started, and that's if they play that $1 tournament perfectly. This is silly. No one's heart is skipping a beat over making a big call or laydown in a $6 tourny. People are playing them pretty similarly. In fact.. I actually believe that at the most micro stakes, people actually play better than a couple of levels higher. No need to get into that here because its not relevant to the discussion, but there are more bluffs and less predictability in super micros... which is much closer to 'correct'. Anyway... yes, you are correct about NLHE... most of the money isn't in the SNGs themselves, but in rakebacks, points, free entries, etc. This is crazy though.. ACR has $0.50 no limit Sngs. It's not like you'd need to be world class to beat those with a huge ROI if everything was fair. Tight aggressive, set mine, exploit bad bet sizes and implied pot odds, etc. When it gets down to a few players, become more aggressive and steal pots where no one hits. It's not rocket science. This formula *should* get a decent player a pretty big ROI in those micros. Not that a decent player should be messing around at those levels anyway... but the point is... one theoretically *should* be able to beat them handily with very little 'variance'. While I'm taking about tournaments... I am not a cash player, but to me the proof there is much more black and white than nuanced tourny stats. I think I mentioned this in my initial post, but I've seen expectation vs result graphs of people who've played a million cash hands. The two lines go in opposite directions. The odds against those results diverging that much by chance are insurmountable. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. and for those players, it's either that their results are trillion to one aberrations. or the results are not random. Many of these guys (like myself) can squeek by and make a few bucks so aren't going to make too much noise... However, I think that ACR has turned up the dial so much over the last couple of years.. and people's tracking software has gotten so good that it's going to reach a critical mass sooner or later where it's not just some fringe folks saying it's 'rigged'... And when I say 'rigged' I'm not talking about bots.. I'm not talking about some super user being able to see cards... I'm talking about an algorithm that generally will let people win some at first, go on a nice run, and then cap you out and put you on an infinite doomswitch. I know it's cheesy, but if one person reads this and is able to stay away or end a spiral of bad results, then it's been worth it. Best wishes! [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language