Had a few pleasant games in a particular tourney format:
9max NL normal speed/structure; NTT S-M field (~150); M-L buy-in (~$300); this runs often enough for me to have accumulated a sample of just under 40 finishes.
I'm happy to have finished in the money every other time, but when I do, I only finish in the bottom 30% where the prize size doesn't vary much and is just about double the buy-in. In fact, with ~top 20 places getting paid I never once made it to the final table!
I find this quite bothering - if anything, I was more prepared to a degree of variance. What are such "consistent" finishes indicative of, if anything? Given the (somewhat limited, I know) information above, should I
- look for alternative formats where I could be more profitable (i.e. supersat structure where everyone in the money gets the same share of the prize)
- get more aggressive pre-bubble which would increase odds of finishing higher up but will also increase variance and I'll bust out more often (not a profitable option IMO, but I'm asking here so no bias)
- get extremely aggressive post-bubble where variance with my current performance is acceptable but would give me a chance of finishing higher (finishing only one place higher than I normally do means literally an extra $100 prize money which would put my ROI into respectable double digits)
- get real and stop complaining about "only a little bit" positive ROI and start playing SNG for volume and rakeback
Edit: I'm accepting @amigal's answer because 1) it's correct and 2) it's the only one! I was hoping for a broader range of opinions provided backed by math and/or poker theory.
I'm glad I'm not the only one after the answers, as indicated by the upvotes - I should put a bounty on it when I have enough rep.