Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Article: Calculating Poker Tournament Expectation

Reply to Thread
  1. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Oct 23rd, 2008 (10/23/2008 6:09pm)

     
  2. lpaper lpaper is offline

    Toronto
    Canada

    Posts: 646
    Joined: Feb 07

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 12:56am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>very good article imo </p>
    3
  3. krispycream krispycream is offline

    PA
    United States

    Posts: 815
    Joined: Sep 07

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 1:42am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Nice first article. Keep em coming. </p>
    <p>i prefer having at least 60% of my roll in one game at any time, but to each his own.</p>
  4. Livew1re Livew1re is offline

    United Kingdom

    Posts: 576
    Joined: Sep 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 2:09am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>i understood that till you got to this part</p>
    <p>"X= AC - 6(BI+R)/6</p>
    <p>X= 22.10 – 6(2.00+.20)/6</p>
    <p>X= 22.10 – 13.20/6</p>
    <p>X= 8.90/6</p>
    <p>X= $1.48</p>
    <p>"</p>
    <p>then i got completely lost. lol.</p>
  5. jokajon00 jokajon00 is offline

    NY
    United States

    Posts: 61
    Joined: May 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 2:27am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Excellent article!!! Now I know how many sng's I gotta play to get another monitor!!!</p>
  6. ripomatic ripomatic is offline

    Posts: 3,228
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 3:37am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>I may be wrong here but isn't 14% = 1/7.1  </p>
    <p>Thanks for making a fairly simple calculation a little more confusing...</p>
  7. seal seal is offline

    Posts: 2,786
    Joined: Jan 05

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 5:20am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Being a math teacher I can confirm that ripomatic is completely right in that 14% does equal 1 out of 7.1 not 1 out of 6 as in the article.</p>
    <p>As simple as possible, the formula the author puts forth just says that if your avg buy in is greater than your avg cash then you play at a loss every time by that amount. If your avg cash is greater than your avg buy in then you play at a profit every time by that amount.</p>
  8. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 7:00am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>I used 15% just to make it easier to understand which came out to about 6.67, I chose to round down and go with the more aggressive ratio really just to make it easier to compute, techinically it should have been seven. I def. should have notated that, my mistake.  That said if you follow the steps then my actual numbers shouldnt matter to much, you should get a correctly solved equation when your done.</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  9. hisnibs2000 hisnibs2000 is offline

    Burlington
    Canada

    Posts: 6
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 7:19am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>i pwn</p>
  10. NightPrince NightPrince is offline Disabled account

    Loughborough
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 90
    Joined: Nov 06

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 7:37am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Finding your expectation in a tournament is easy, it's the number of buyins you need to play a tournament which is where people go wrong.</p>
  11. Pastwind Pastwind is offline

    Albi
    France

    Posts: 12
    Joined: Dec 07

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 7:55am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>I like the part where X = 1.48$ becomes X = 148$. A sure bankroll booster!</p>
  12. Paulieballz Paulieballz is offline

    Posts: 1
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 8:34am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>The formula should actually have ( ) around the subtraction as well otherwise the division portion is supposed to be done first.  Therefore, X= (22.10 – 6(2.00+.20))/6 is really the way the formula should be written.</p>
  13. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 9:06am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>again your correct, sorry but I had to rewrite this at 5 am due to my hard drive failing the night wen. night.  it should be {22.10-6(2.00+.20)}/6 thanks pualie that is key... thanks for bearing with me through the first article kinks!</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  14. Spaceh0g Spaceh0g is offline

    United States

    Posts: 348
    Joined: Feb 07

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 9:09am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>wait, why don't you just take ($1,857/596)-$2.20 to get "X"...?</p>
  15. Zunga Zunga is offline

    Powell River
    Canada

    Posts: 186
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 9:48am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Why don't you all become Grade 12 Mathematics Teachers, and not correct every fucking thing that's said.  1/6 or 1/7, brackets or not.  Close enough.  Who gives a shit.  Keep it to yourselves.  </p>
  16. Nate Avenson Nate Avenson is offline

    Park Rapids, MN
    United States

    Posts: 1,730
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 2:30pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>"wait, why don't you just take ($1,857/596)-$2.20 to get "X"...?"</p>
    <p>This.</p>
     
  17. Zpaceman Zpaceman is offline

    Spain

    Posts: 1,229
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 2:54pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>lol, this article is bad, but what else can i expect when i haven't written any myself recently. a whole article for a trivial calculation that might make 1 paragraph of a good article and then he gets the math wrong. the actual answer, as earlier posters correctly showed, is X = $0.92 (quite a difference, huh!) and, ldo, 596 trials at 180-man SNGs is not even close to a good sample size. nice try, but come back with some stats when u've played like 2k times. having said that ~40% ROI at $2.20 180-man SNGs seems reasonable for anyone with modest poker skills. no way, however, can this ever be translated to an expection of 40% ROI at $220 abi like this author risibly attempted here. epic fail imo. next please...</p>
     
  18. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 2:54pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>its the same thing... but without the longer equation it would be harder to manipulate for other adjustments, and I felt the specific formula offered a better handle on what components went into the number and how they effected the outcome. either way will work just fine. </p>
     
    Thread Starter
  19. Nate Avenson Nate Avenson is offline

    Park Rapids, MN
    United States

    Posts: 1,730
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 8:53pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>I'm a little confused. What does this formula calculate? It doesn't calculate ROI, And I always thought Expectation = ROI</p>
     
  20. grapsfan grapsfan is offline Head Curmudgeon

    Rosemount, MN
    United States

    Posts: 7,980
    Joined: Jun 05

    Oct 24th, 2008 (10/24/2008 9:26pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Stu, for someone who has gotten BURIED by his peers more than anyone else who has ever written for this site...I might have expected a little more support for someone making his first attempt at this.</p>
    <p>Stay classy, San Diego.</p>
     
  21. Zpaceman Zpaceman is offline

    Spain

    Posts: 1,229
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 25th, 2008 (10/25/2008 6:41am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>sorry graps (and dgillis), my response was somewhat of a pastiche of the kind of shit i sometimes get, but i probably chose the wrong target. stu. </p>
     
  22. Fear Le55 Fear Le55 is offline

    Toronto
    Canada

    Posts: 83
    Joined: Feb 07

    Nov 1st, 2008 (11/1/2008 4:32pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>ur just an ass hole , fuck you</p>
  23. Neoattitude Neoattitude is offline

    GU
    United States

    Posts: 4
    Joined: Oct 07

    Nov 5th, 2008 (11/5/2008 8:04am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Awesome Article!!!! I enjoyed reading it.</p>
    <p>Just one minor error to ur equation that a math major like me would catch.</p>
    <p>You wrote:</p>
    <p>X= AC - 6(BI+R)/6</p>
    <p>X= 22.10 – 6(2.00+.20)/6</p>
    <p>X= 22.10 – 13.20/6</p>
    <p>X= 8.90/6</p>
    <p>X= $1.48</p>
    <p>You are just missing paranthesis ( ) or brackets [ ] before AC and after R). so it should like this:</p>
    <p>X= [AC - 6(BI+R)]/6</p>
    <p>X= [22.10 – 6(2.00+.20)]/6</p>
    <p>X= [22.10 – 13.20]/6</p>
    <p>X= 8.90/6</p>
    <p>X= $1.48</p>
    <p>again... i guess this is just a minor error and it doesnt change the fact that this article is awesome and very informative. </p>
    <p>Thank you very much for posting it!</p>
  24. tigertonkin tigertonkin is offline

    Redruth
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 359
    Joined: May 08

    Nov 29th, 2008 (11/29/2008 9:37pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>LMAO, the guy spends ages writing this and every 1 on here just rips it to shreds. Im not maths genuis but i understand what hes saying.</p>
    <p>But also if maths is such a big factor in poker then i would expect all of the people above to be great players and massive bankrolls, but i doubt it. which proves fcuk the maths and play the cards.</p>
    <p>p.s good effort stu, i appreciated it.</p>
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads