

I have been thinking.
If we assume money means nothing to me and my goal is to simply maximize my ROI at one stake level before moving up to the next. What then would be the highest realistically possible ROI range. I am guessing 300700 ROI should be sustained before moving up. Remember the assumption that money means nothing and I could happily remain at this or that current level until either ROI goal is reached, or hell freezes over. What do you reckon, ye who have clues? 




Hell will likely freeze over if you set your goal too high. Players who do well over a large sample size usually have an ROI somewhere between 0% and 20%. In really soft fields, you can manage higher, but even in a game full of gambling puppies where you're the only person at the table who knows how to play, I believe that luck will cause your ROI to cap somewhere eventually.
What that basically means is that your ROI will be less likely to increase as your sample size goes up. If you play a largefield MTT and win on your first try, that's probably the highest your ROI will ever be. So, prolonged effort and hard work can make your ROI go up, but not forever. I'd set the bar well under 50%. Personally I'd be thrilled if I could hit 5% while 20tabling. 




Quote:
*Prepares to be chastised for error of my ways* That can't be right for larger MTTs. I understand and agree with the sample size statistics of course (my, those university credits are finally paying off). But it has to be a function of time I suppose. Hmm... 20 5 dollar buyins at 5% and average time of 0.5 hrs. That is 90 bucks an hour after subtracting rake. Which is reasonable when viewing poker as a business. But that would be 4590 player range? ...Take those 1350 players you face on average per hour. Multiply by 3 to get the number of players you would face in 3 hours under same terms = 8100. To earn the same 90 dollars an hour, you would need to average winning 0.75% of prize pool with a 5 dollar buyin. So I asked the wrong question. The relevant ROI is entirely dependent on the number of players I face and the time it takes to face them. Drat, now I am stuck. I had my reasons for wanting a ROI threshold. 




*unstuck*
If I assume the number of players is linear to the sum time spent in all mtts played, the any cited ROI simply indicates the size of the mtts. ROI is actually a rather meaningless statistic. As is dollars per hour if the hours is the sum of hours spent on all mtts and not the sum of actual hours spent independent of multitables played simultaneously. I have invested 40 dollars and 40 real hours to profit 40 dollars off 55 000 players. So an ROI of 100% and a dollar an hour. The actual key numbers here are players per hour and profit per player 55 000 / 40 = 137,5 1 / 137,5 = 0,7 cents an hour off each player. There are two ways then to improve. Each requiring different skills (multitasking and playing good poker): 1. Play more players per hour 2. Earn more vrs each player If I decide that ultimately 100 dollars an hour is about minimum baseline "invoice" rate, then I have two unknowns. I will arbitrarily define 1000 players an hour as my goal. So I would like to make about 10 cents off each of them. Which pretty much works out to about 5% ROI with 20 5 buck 4590 tables averaging 30 minutes per table. I am 1% there at best. Yay! (To answer my initial question. The levels I play at is ultimately just a bank roll issue requiring careful monitoring to make sure the level is in fact profitable in opportunity cost sense. By metric of profit/player/hour). Thanks PP. I get there in the end . 




EKKK  I was thinking if i could get my ROI to the 1520% range on the $15 STT's i would take a shot at the $30 games.
Where did players per hour come from? That would be from increasing Field size in an MTT which conversly will cause you to have a lower ROI. ROI is also not time dedepant then you would use dollars per hour. BTW were you thinking MTT, STT or cash games? Grade b 13 Time Bracelet Winner





Quote:
Looking at earnings/losses per hour is much too simple . An ROI does not mean anything unless the time is known. Imagine my winning 100% of time in a 1 dollar headsup. I have a ROI of 100%. Catch is its moderated play where me and my opponent are corresponding with a dealer and each other by snail mail. So each match takes 2 years. We get free postage...but still . The relative value of a ROI is directly related to the time it takes you to earn the return on investment. An ROI of 5% is great if it takes you 20 minutes on average to earn it. An ROI of 45% would be exactly as great if it took you 3 hours on average to earn that. If you buy the assumption that all things otherwise being equal then time an MTT lasts correlates to number of players involved, then expressing profit/losses per player per hour makes sense as it allows direct comparison of various sized mtts and allows for conversion of multitabling to a single table equivalent. We do after all ultimately win or lose money from and to other players. So if you are making a profit, you really have two choices  Do you want to earn more from each player (increase the limits you play), or do you want to earn the same from more players (increase the number of players you face in a defined time frame) To me then, there is no inherent earning potential between playing 2700 players in 40 matches (so 20 with average match lasting 30 minutes), or playing 8100 in a single match over 3 hours. Though the ROI would look very different of course. If you had a 5% ROI for 40 matches over an hour, then its equivalent for 1 match over 3 hours would be an ROI of 600% A focus on tables played does not make sense to me. Tables are not giving or taking money from me. Other players are. At a pretty constant rate per player. So if I am making a profit, then I want to play as many people as possible at a time. And then there is the rake and rake back....gah, the rake back is where it gets complicated. 




I agree its a complicated mass. ou need to look at what suits you. I sat at lunch and worked out profit for upcomming months IF I had an ROI of 5% in $15 STT's (then tried to factor in profit loss for cash) and number of games i would play per week.
It looked pretty good but of course i'm not at 5% ROI yet But it gives me a base line to aim at. I want to start withdrawing some profit when my bankroll hits $1k and i'm rolled for 25NL Thats the plan anyway. Grade b 13 Time Bracelet Winner





On a complete sidenote. Here is a strategy for the 100k 10 000 players
10 cents added per player 10 cents added by rebuys (typically 1/3rd of players) = 20 cents per player A rebuy costs 30 cents, so never do that. You are then paying 30 cents for the equivalent of a 20 cent buyin tournament. Add on period 3333 players remaining. The previous 20 cents per player is now 60 cents per remaining player. 1/3rd add ons, so 70 cents per player. 30 cents is far less than 70 cents. So always addon unless you have a ludicrous stack and the extra chips are meaningless. 


