The only reason I can see that would stop any of the top mtt players doing this is the inability to reload if they ran badly at the start, the likes of TimmyRaRa could do this standing on his head playing DYMs.
The only reason I can see that would stop any of the top mtt players doing this is the inability to reload if they ran badly at the start, the likes of TimmyRaRa could do this standing on his head playing DYMs.
You're probably bang on there Palace person, However you have to admit that TimmyRaRa is somewhat above the average player, even the average reg.
The only reason I can see that would stop any of the top mtt players doing this is the inability to reload if they ran badly at the start, the likes of TimmyRaRa could do this standing on his head playing DYMs.
You're probably bang on there Palace person, However you have to admit that TimmyRaRa is somewhat above the average player, even the average reg.
100% agree, Tim is head and shoulders above any one else at DYMs on the site.
I'm pretty modest and pessimistic about my poker ability, but I think I'd be 95%+ to be able to pull this off.
12 months is a long time.
It helps if we have a solid foundation of poker knowledge and experience to start with, but even if not, we can get alot better very quickly with a £1,000,000 incentive.
Get the best coaches in, mind coaches, psychologists etc.
I think if you offered this challenge to an average man on the street, who's never played poker before, there would be a decent chance of success.
As much as I love my job, I could quit it tomorrow, and in a years time definitely get another one that pays the same relatively easily.
I think for people who have promising careers, and/or young families it would be most difficult for them to make the sacrifices required to complete this challenge.
It wouldn't be easy for anyone, but with full commitment I think it would be almost a formality for alot of people.
On paper it isn't "that" big an ask.
Thanks for your replies, interesting one for sure.
I'm pretty modest and pessimistic about my poker ability, but I think I'd be 95%+ to be able to pull this off.
12 months is a long time.
It helps if we have a solid foundation of poker knowledge and experience to start with, but even if not, we can get alot better very quickly with a £1,000,000 incentive.
Get the best coaches in, mind coaches, psychologists etc.
I think if you offered this challenge to an average man on the street, who's never played poker before, there would be a decent chance of success.
As much as I love my job, I could quit it tomorrow, and in a years time definitely get another one that pays the same relatively easily.
I think for people who have promising careers, and/or young families it would be most difficult for them to make the sacrifices required to complete this challenge.
It wouldn't be easy for anyone, but with full commitment I think it would be almost a formality for alot of people.
On paper it isn't "that" big an ask.
Thanks for your replies, interesting one for sure.
Poker is often about opinions. Often from people (including me) who have very definite opinions on things.
You believe that you are "modest and pessimistic about your ability". Please note-I am in no way knocking your ability. You are a skilled poker player. But let's look at that 95% another way.
You (or I) have exactly £1,000 to use playing poker for 12 months (including any winnings accrued). There are 4 possible outcomes (although 1 is so unlikely I have lumped it into the 1st scenario):-
1. You lose the £1,000. Please note that this in no way means you are a losing poker player. It is just a £1,000 downswing. Also, it is technically possible that you have between £1 and £999 after 12 months.
2. You make a profit on your £1,000 investment of between 0.1% £1) and 2,899% (£29,999, including original stake)
3. You make a profit in excess of 2,900% on your money
You believe you have a 95% chance of making a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a.
Which begs the questions-(1) why are fewer and fewer people playing poker every year?
And (2) why do people ignore the fact that it is the losing players that are far more likely to leave? Because every format is both losing numbers and getting harder. People are using lifetime stats, instead of 2022 ones. Because this challenge would be far easier in the past.
This is probably more pronounced on Sky than elsewhere. Simply because it has traditionally been 1 of the weaker UK sites.
Finally, the £1million is obviously a factor here. But I think people underestimate how many of the best poker players are already striving to turn £1,000 into £30,000. This year. And every year.
Cant really be looked at making 2900% on your money thats only on this scenario, pretty sure for example that no one could turn 10k in 300k in a year on sky
2,900% is not the correct return on investment, as I’m sure is patently obvious to you as an experienced poker player. What matters is the total investment you can make by repeating a small transaction without going bust, and clearly the larger that number the smaller the ROI required to achieve the figure.
Whilst i would dispute the fact that 95% of players on here could do this, i would agree that it is probably highly possible.
The main reason is the added money, as @DOHHHHHHH states with the best coaches ect and being able to afford them so it may cost you quite a bit of the bonus amount
Would you be able to afford to attempt it also needs to be considered, could you afford to live and put in time required or bea ble to put you life on hold of 12 months.
@Essexphil No 1 on the list above is not valid as with the points earned from £1000 staked something could earned from points freerolls. maybe this is a debate for another day but anyone can build a bankroll from zero.
if this is not possible what is the highest starting figure You believe where a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a is achievable
@TheEdge949 asked a good question of if a micro stakes player turning £100 into £3,000 over the same time frame and under the same rules would be a bigger achievement. with the time to do it and a little effort even without the bonus this is achievable for many
Whilst i would dispute the fact that 95% of players on here could do this, i would agree that it is probably highly possible.
The main reason is the added money, as @DOHHHHHHH states with the best coaches ect and being able to afford them so it may cost you quite a bit of the bonus amount
Would you be able to afford to attempt it also needs to be considered, could you afford to live and put in time required or bea ble to put you life on hold of 12 months.
@Essexphil No 1 on the list above is not valid as with the points earned from £1000 staked something could earned from points freerolls. maybe this is a debate for another day but anyone can build a bankroll from zero.
if this is not possible what is the highest starting figure You believe where a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a is achievable
@TheEdge949 asked a good question of if a micro stakes player turning £100 into £3,000 over the same time frame and under the same rules. with the time to do it and a little effort even without the bonus this is achievable for many
I've been trying this for years and never hit 4 figures
Whilst i would dispute the fact that 95% of players on here could do this, i would agree that it is probably highly possible.
The main reason is the added money, as @DOHHHHHHH states with the best coaches ect and being able to afford them so it may cost you quite a bit of the bonus amount
Would you be able to afford to attempt it also needs to be considered, could you afford to live and put in time required or bea ble to put you life on hold of 12 months.
@Essexphil No 1 on the list above is not valid as with the points earned from £1000 staked something could earned from points freerolls. maybe this is a debate for another day but anyone can build a bankroll from zero.
if this is not possible what is the highest starting figure You believe where a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a is achievable
@TheEdge949 asked a good question of if a micro stakes player turning £100 into £3,000 over the same time frame and under the same rules would be a bigger achievement. with the time to do it and a little effort even without the bonus this is achievable for many
I still don't buy it.
How many times have you sat down at a table and never had any chance of winning even 1 hand.
The first £1,000 could be gone before you know it.
If the answer is never then I will swap seats with you a lot of the time.
People seem to be underestimating the £1million here. Surely when that amount of money is at stake it gives you max focus and as has been mentioned you get top coaching. You would grind so hard because that money would have a big effect on your life unless you are already an eccentric millionaire like @Duesenberg .
If it is just £1k into £30k. If you are putting in full time hours then its unlikely you would be starting with just £1k and you would most likely be withdrawing for living expenses. Also, you would be wanting to be playing more hours than just normal working hours with the million up for grabs.
I don't think the investment analogy makes sense. It would be a job. Who starts up a business with £1k for the tools they need, works full time and analyses things based on the return on that £1k. Surely its about the hourly wage you make.
So £1k to £30k in one year on one site wouldn't happen for most people in normal conditions as why would you put your life on hold to make £30k. Have the milli at stake and it surely changes things.
2,900% is not the correct return on investment, as I’m sure is patently obvious to you as an experienced poker player. What matters is the total investment you can make by repeating a small transaction without going bust, and clearly the larger that number the smaller the ROI required to achieve the figure.
Yes. It is. Turning £1,000 into £30,000 in 1 year is a 2,900% p.a return. Exactly what is required by this challenge. Rather better than the 0.01% Banks seem to be offering.
That is real maths. Poker players use a different mathematical model than that. ROI in poker circles, as you rightly say, involves reinvesting the same money time and time again. So-suppose a 10% return. Need to risk c.300k. If playing 300 days, that averages at £1k per day. Your starting amount.
Let's look on Sharkscope. Let's see how many people made that amount on Sky in SNGs. Last year. Or the year before. None. Assuming can double profit from rakeback? (Optimistic). 1.
Do people make more than £30,000 p.a from Sky? Of course. How many of them did that while only having access to £1,000? I'm going for 0. Or a number very, very close to 0.
2,900% is not the correct return on investment, as I’m sure is patently obvious to you as an experienced poker player. What matters is the total investment you can make by repeating a small transaction without going bust, and clearly the larger that number the smaller the ROI required to achieve the figure.
Yes. It is. Turning £1,000 into £30,000 in 1 year is a 2,900% p.a return. Exactly what is required by this challenge. Rather better than the 0.01% Banks seem to be offering.
That is real maths. Poker players use a different mathematical model than that. ROI in poker circles, as you rightly say, involves reinvesting the same money time and time again. So-suppose a 10% return. Need to risk c.300k. If playing 300 days, that averages at £1k per day. Your starting amount.
Let's look on Sharkscope. Let's see how many people made that amount on Sky in SNGs. Last year. Or the year before. None. Assuming can double profit from rakeback? (Optimistic). 1.
Do people make more than £30,000 p.a from Sky? Of course. How many of them did that while only having access to £1,000? I'm going for 0. Or a number very, very close to 0.
There’s a reason there’s a different calculation. The starting amount is irrelevant aside from its contribution to the risk of ruin (and the opportunity cost of doing something else with the money). In other investments this amount is directly related to the return. If you put £20k in and played £10 DYMs for a year it’s not the bankroll that’s doing the work.
It doesn’t matter that you’d be wagering the £1k in a day, all that matters is the expected variance in the games you’re playing and therefore the risk of ruin. Winning players would find it hard to go bust playing the lower variance games with careful BRM.
2,900% is not the correct return on investment, as I’m sure is patently obvious to you as an experienced poker player. What matters is the total investment you can make by repeating a small transaction without going bust, and clearly the larger that number the smaller the ROI required to achieve the figure.
Yes. It is. Turning £1,000 into £30,000 in 1 year is a 2,900% p.a return. Exactly what is required by this challenge. Rather better than the 0.01% Banks seem to be offering.
That is real maths. Poker players use a different mathematical model than that. ROI in poker circles, as you rightly say, involves reinvesting the same money time and time again. So-suppose a 10% return. Need to risk c.300k. If playing 300 days, that averages at £1k per day. Your starting amount.
Let's look on Sharkscope. Let's see how many people made that amount on Sky in SNGs. Last year. Or the year before. None. Assuming can double profit from rakeback? (Optimistic). 1.
Do people make more than £30,000 p.a from Sky? Of course. How many of them did that while only having access to £1,000? I'm going for 0. Or a number very, very close to 0.
There’s a reason there’s a different calculation. The starting amount is irrelevant aside from its contribution to the risk of ruin (and the opportunity cost of doing something else with the money). In other investments this amount is directly related to the return. If you put £20k in and played £10 DYMs for a year it’s not the bankroll that’s doing the work.
It doesn’t matter that you’d be wagering the £1k in a day, all that matters is the expected variance in the games you’re playing and therefore the risk of ruin. Winning players would find it hard to go bust playing the lower variance games with careful BRM.
With the greatest of respect, you are pointing out the big strength of DYMs compared to the other 2 formats for this challenge. While ignoring the equally valid disadvantage.
What you say is correct. Far less likely to go busto. Far more likely to make a profit. Just not a big enough one. for precisely the reasons you give.
In Cash/MTTs, you start with £1k. but, as your bankroll grows, you can use it more effectively. By entering bigger/more tables/tournaments. Making 2.5K a month becomes easier as the roll grows. Not true for DYMs. There is not the cumulative effect provided by the other formats.
At a 10% ROI at ABI of £10, you need to play 2,500 DYMs a month. While keeping that same ROI. For 12 months. 1 month? Easy. Not 12 months. You need to play more tables, for longer. At times when there are less people about. When you do not necessarily feel like playing.
There is a reason why people are not hitting those numbers with those profits in DYMs.
I suspect the optimal strategy would be DYMs for 3 months, then switch.
With the greatest respect to you Phil I was not commenting on the optimal strategy to complete this hypothetical challenge, merely using it as an example as to why it would not be relevant to calculate a return on investment in poker as it is in other investments. Start with a million or start with a thousand, the bankroll is entirely fictional aside from risk of ruin.
2,900% is not the correct return on investment, as I’m sure is patently obvious to you as an experienced poker player. What matters is the total investment you can make by repeating a small transaction without going bust, and clearly the larger that number the smaller the ROI required to achieve the figure.
Yes. It is. Turning £1,000 into £30,000 in 1 year is a 2,900% p.a return. Exactly what is required by this challenge. Rather better than the 0.01% Banks seem to be offering.
That is real maths. Poker players use a different mathematical model than that. ROI in poker circles, as you rightly say, involves reinvesting the same money time and time again. So-suppose a 10% return. Need to risk c.300k. If playing 300 days, that averages at £1k per day. Your starting amount.
Let's look on Sharkscope. Let's see how many people made that amount on Sky in SNGs. Last year. Or the year before. None. Assuming can double profit from rakeback? (Optimistic). 1.
Do people make more than £30,000 p.a from Sky? Of course. How many of them did that while only having access to £1,000? I'm going for 0. Or a number very, very close to 0.
There’s a reason there’s a different calculation. The starting amount is irrelevant aside from its contribution to the risk of ruin (and the opportunity cost of doing something else with the money). In other investments this amount is directly related to the return. If you put £20k in and played £10 DYMs for a year it’s not the bankroll that’s doing the work.
It doesn’t matter that you’d be wagering the £1k in a day, all that matters is the expected variance in the games you’re playing and therefore the risk of ruin. Winning players would find it hard to go bust playing the lower variance games with careful BRM.
With the greatest of respect, you are pointing out the big strength of DYMs compared to the other 2 formats for this challenge. While ignoring the equally valid disadvantage.
What you say is correct. Far less likely to go busto. Far more likely to make a profit. Just not a big enough one. for precisely the reasons you give.
In Cash/MTTs, you start with £1k. but, as your bankroll grows, you can use it more effectively. By entering bigger/more tables/tournaments. Making 2.5K a month becomes easier as the roll grows. Not true for DYMs. There is not the cumulative effect provided by the other formats.
At a 10% ROI at ABI of £10, you need to play 2,500 DYMs a month. While keeping that same ROI. For 12 months. 1 month? Easy. Not 12 months. You need to play more tables, for longer. At times when there are less people about. When you do not necessarily feel like playing.
There is a reason why people are not hitting those numbers with those profits in DYMs.
I suspect the optimal strategy would be DYMs for 3 months, then switch.
What about rake back? @Jac35 who has played more DYMs than most, has said its more than doable, you will be getting huge amounts of rake back. In fact I'd wager there were many turbo dym players whose biggest portion of profit is the rake back.
Comments
I'm pretty modest and pessimistic about my poker ability, but I think I'd be 95%+ to be able to pull this off.
12 months is a long time.
It helps if we have a solid foundation of poker knowledge and experience to start with, but even if not, we can get alot better very quickly with a £1,000,000 incentive.
Get the best coaches in, mind coaches, psychologists etc.
I think if you offered this challenge to an average man on the street, who's never played poker before, there would be a decent chance of success.
As much as I love my job, I could quit it tomorrow, and in a years time definitely get another one that pays the same relatively easily.
I think for people who have promising careers, and/or young families it would be most difficult for them to make the sacrifices required to complete this challenge.
It wouldn't be easy for anyone, but with full commitment I think it would be almost a formality for alot of people.
On paper it isn't "that" big an ask.
Thanks for your replies, interesting one for sure.
You believe that you are "modest and pessimistic about your ability". Please note-I am in no way knocking your ability. You are a skilled poker player. But let's look at that 95% another way.
You (or I) have exactly £1,000 to use playing poker for 12 months (including any winnings accrued). There are 4 possible outcomes (although 1 is so unlikely I have lumped it into the 1st scenario):-
1. You lose the £1,000. Please note that this in no way means you are a losing poker player. It is just a £1,000 downswing. Also, it is technically possible that you have between £1 and £999 after 12 months.
2. You make a profit on your £1,000 investment of between 0.1% £1) and 2,899% (£29,999, including original stake)
3. You make a profit in excess of 2,900% on your money
You believe you have a 95% chance of making a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a.
Which begs the questions-(1) why are fewer and fewer people playing poker every year?
And (2) why do people ignore the fact that it is the losing players that are far more likely to leave? Because every format is both losing numbers and getting harder. People are using lifetime stats, instead of 2022 ones. Because this challenge would be far easier in the past.
This is probably more pronounced on Sky than elsewhere. Simply because it has traditionally been 1 of the weaker UK sites.
Finally, the £1million is obviously a factor here. But I think people underestimate how many of the best poker players are already striving to turn £1,000 into £30,000. This year. And every year.
Interesting debate.
The main reason is the added money, as @DOHHHHHHH states with the best coaches ect and being able to afford them so it may cost you quite a bit of the bonus amount
Would you be able to afford to attempt it also needs to be considered, could you afford to live and put in time required or bea ble to put you life on hold of 12 months.
@Essexphil No 1 on the list above is not valid as with the points earned from £1000 staked something could earned from points freerolls. maybe this is a debate for another day but anyone can build a bankroll from zero.
if this is not possible what is the highest starting figure You believe where a profit in excess of 2,900% p.a is achievable
@TheEdge949 asked a good question of if a micro stakes player turning £100 into £3,000 over the same time frame and under the same rules would be a bigger achievement.
with the time to do it and a little effort even without the bonus this is achievable for many
How many times have you sat down at a table and never had any chance of winning even 1 hand.
The first £1,000 could be gone before you know it.
If the answer is never then I will swap seats with you a lot of the time.
If it is just £1k into £30k. If you are putting in full time hours then its unlikely you would be starting with just £1k and you would most likely be withdrawing for living expenses. Also, you would be wanting to be playing more hours than just normal working hours with the million up for grabs.
I don't think the investment analogy makes sense. It would be a job. Who starts up a business with £1k for the tools they need, works full time and analyses things based on the return on that £1k. Surely its about the hourly wage you make.
So £1k to £30k in one year on one site wouldn't happen for most people in normal conditions as why would you put your life on hold to make £30k. Have the milli at stake and it surely changes things.
I usually sit down at a table and not having any chance of winning even 1 hand.
This doesn't mean it is not achievable
That is real maths. Poker players use a different mathematical model than that. ROI in poker circles, as you rightly say, involves reinvesting the same money time and time again. So-suppose a 10% return. Need to risk c.300k. If playing 300 days, that averages at £1k per day. Your starting amount.
Let's look on Sharkscope. Let's see how many people made that amount on Sky in SNGs. Last year. Or the year before. None. Assuming can double profit from rakeback? (Optimistic). 1.
Do people make more than £30,000 p.a from Sky? Of course. How many of them did that while only having access to £1,000? I'm going for 0. Or a number very, very close to 0.
It doesn’t matter that you’d be wagering the £1k in a day, all that matters is the expected variance in the games you’re playing and therefore the risk of ruin. Winning players would find it hard to go bust playing the lower variance games with careful BRM.
What you say is correct. Far less likely to go busto. Far more likely to make a profit. Just not a big enough one. for precisely the reasons you give.
In Cash/MTTs, you start with £1k. but, as your bankroll grows, you can use it more effectively. By entering bigger/more tables/tournaments. Making 2.5K a month becomes easier as the roll grows. Not true for DYMs. There is not the cumulative effect provided by the other formats.
At a 10% ROI at ABI of £10, you need to play 2,500 DYMs a month. While keeping that same ROI. For 12 months. 1 month? Easy. Not 12 months. You need to play more tables, for longer. At times when there are less people about. When you do not necessarily feel like playing.
There is a reason why people are not hitting those numbers with those profits in DYMs.
I suspect the optimal strategy would be DYMs for 3 months, then switch.