Tennessee_ATO said:
jandyt said:
I am guilty of this 'arrogance.'
I would much rather put $500 into a $5 contest with 100-entry max than to enter a single $535 50/50 contest. Why? ...because the cut line for the former will assuredly be lower than the latter; if I'm going to risk $500, I want the best odds of doubling that money and the lower dollar games offer those better odds.
I completely understand it's frustrating to newer players to see huge trains in these contests, but the sites will have to be the ones to apply entry limits before it stops because the edge to too good for better players to just ignore it altogether.
Completely understand why you or anyone would do this makes perfect sense for players with larger bankrolls. What is interesting to me is that players seem to be finding that multi entry contests have lower cut lines than single entry contests. The large trains created by "pros" would seem likely to create the opposite effect. Now there are some players who spend a lot of money who are good players but they seem less likely to create trains which implies some strategy skill. I have tended to avoid multi entry contests but maybe I shouldn't be.
I'm not convinced that the data supports the position that the multi-plays have lower cutlines than the single-plays. I know that's what a couple of folks have said based on very little data. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Basing that conclusion on anything less than hundreds of data points is suspect. The point of this thread was for folks to post data so we collectively get enough to make a true analysis of it. Only 2 other people seem willing to actually provide any data though.
The theories behind the trains are that the larger contests have higher cutlines than the cheaper contests. Intuitively that seems to be correct, but what if all the "sharps" are playing trains in $5 50/50s instead of playing the $535 50/50s?
If people share their data, we can pretty easily figure out how much better one play is over another.
I am a scientist by training, so I get the "I don't believe it until you show me" mentality...but I have zero doubt that lower levels are easier to win than higher levels simply because of years' worth of experience across multiple levels. I've done the math you describe and the noticeable differences start occurring above the $25 level (to my recollection). That said, you don't have to believe me or accept somebody's anecdotal evidence--I believe that Jonathan Bales' books did an exhaustive analysis demonstrating how scores rise in conjunction with buy-in level.
Make no mistake: The sharps are still playing at the higher levels, too, but their best ROI is from the lower levels; they are playing at the higher levels only to maximize their volume...otherwise, it would be a lot easier to just click once on a $535 game than a hundred times on a $5 game.
The lower levels are easier because there are still a lot of dead rosters in those games...even if MaxDalury and CSURams put 50 entries/each into a 1000-entry 50/50, their entries are still facing at least another 100 or so bad lineups. Those 'bad' lineups are much less prevalent at the $270 and up levels; people playing at the higher buy-ins tend to know what they're doing...people who play at the $1 level are mixed between people who know what they're doing and people who are just there to have fun and not make a long-term profit.