Alot of Work For 4 Dollars

[RPatterson]

I guess it's time for me to move up in limits because the act of having to play poker seems to be a deterrent to me now rather than fun.

Normaly I think of myself as enjoying poker but I just finished this 5-dollar 6-man tournament in 2nd place for a net of 4 dollars and found myself saying, "that's alot of stress for 4 dollars".

Do you guys enjoy your sit-n-go's? The problem was I went into the final 2 with a chip disadvantage and had to spend about a half an hour making small plays here and there until I established a commanding chip lead. Then in 3 hands its all wasted when he draws out on me twice.

This feeling of why did I spend an unenjoyable stressful half hour fighting back to gain a chip lead so the random number generator could take it away in 3 hands swept over me.

That is it, no more 5 dollar sit-n-go's. Even if there are no 10 or 20 dollar ones available, I'm not going to play the 5's. Because I guess I don't enjoy playing poker. Well unless I win. After the tournament is over and I'm not playing anymore. So 2nd has to pay more than 4 dollars. You know what I mean?

[Daxonovitch]

Generally at the $5 level, people are playing for fun. If you'd like to have "more to show" for winning a SNG, you're pretty much going to have to move up in levels a bit.

[RPatterson]

I don't know why but I always go back and forth from 5 dollar to 30 dollar sit n go's. And it is hard to adjust to the difference in play.

[Daxonovitch]

Don't do that then. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Bankroll management is key. While you may want to have a minimum buyin (paying 20% rake is just silly, by the way, it'd be nearly impossible to beat that), you should try to stick to something like 15 to 25 buyins as your metric for which game to play. I use 30xbuyins since I'm a bit of a kitty cat when it comes to my bankroll.

Manage your bankroll and you won't go broke. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't do that then. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Bankroll management is key. While you may want to have a minimum buyin (paying 20% rake is just silly, by the way, it'd be nearly impossible to beat that), you should try to stick to something like 15 to 25 buyins as your metric for which game to play. I use 30xbuyins since I'm a bit of a kitty cat when it comes to my bankroll.

Manage your bankroll and you won't go broke. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

the 20% rake is only at party, he talks about a 6 person $5 SNG, which they dont have there, so....it isnt a 20% rake

[mack23]

Ero,

I hear you all the way on this one. It will start to make you think you are burned out on poker (happened to me 2 days ago) when you really are not. Ever played a multi table tournament for 4 hours only to finish on the bubble or maybe profit $10? The worst. A suggestion is to vary the games you are playing. I don't know how your bankroll looks but that doesn't mean you have to risk a large % of your bankroll in order to make your session "entertaining" If you like the $5 SNGs (or used to) give the $25 NL ring game a shot. It can be a real boost to the spirit when you flop a set and win $50+ in one hand! Or maybe try your hand at $1/$2 for a while or maybe even an Omaha tourney. Hopefully a little variety will bring back that feeling that keeps us all playing.

-Mack

[DrPhysic]

Regarding your decision not to play $5s:

I recently ran an experiment where i put $100 on party, started playing $10 one table SNGs. Proposition was to play 10s until reaching 200, 20s until reaching 300, 30s... and drop back anytime the amount dropped below the target. I played 181 games. In the process I played 5s, 10s, 20s, and 30s, not in equal numbers, but close enough for horseshoes and handgrenades. I kept a spreadsheet on all the games i played: game#, buyin, place, cashout, current total, running ITM and ROI. After I quit, I went back and analyzed the results by buyin. Seems that I was losing money at the 5s, losing money at the 30s, breaking even at the 10s, and made all the money in 20s. I have since restarted a similar experiment playing in just 20s.

We all know there is a higher level than we usually play at which we will get beaten, whether because of better players, or because we are playing with scared money. However, I think my experiment demonstrated that at least for me there is a lower level at which I lose (I believe) because I am playing with BORED money.

I think there is a level or a range that is correct for any individual at which the game remains challenging and interesting without being overwhelming. And for that time, that level of experience, and that level of bankroll, all of which can change over time, that is the correct level for that person to be playing. The level of interest can be heightened as has been suggested by changing from SNGs to MTTs or rings within a given risk/reward level. The proposition that I am suggesting therefore is that playing outside your comfort range, either high or low (not just high) is -EV.

Just some thoughts.

Doc

[Holm Fries]

[ QUOTE ]

We all know there is a higher level than we usually play at which we will get beaten, whether because of better players, or because we are playing with scared money. However, I think my experiment demonstrated that at least for me there is a lower level at which I lose (I believe) because I am playing with BORED money.

Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. Settle into a level at which you are comfortable, track and analyze your results over a period of time and adjust your direction accordingly. I played a large sample of 10s,20s,30s, and 50s (a few 5s but gave up because of the juice). I settled on the 30s because they were both the most profitable and the most entertaining.

By the way, I don't think the players at this level are as tough/tricky as you may give them credit for. Try a larger sample and see how you do. I think that the typical Party $3/6 ring game is tougher than the typical 30+3 SNG.

[DrPhysic]

I agree about the $33s.

I did not put the results of my initial experiment in the earlier post because I did not feel it was particularly relevant to the message. I went broke after 181 games. I moved up through 20s into 30s and initially did well. Played about 25 games in 30s. At some point I got on a losing streak, whether because of a long run of bad cards (which did happen), or because I was playing just above my comfort zone at that time, or because I went on tilt a little bit. Possibly just a case of the variance catching up with my very short bankroll. Played down to 250, played 20s, eventually dropping back to 10s. Dropped to 65, played 5s (bored) and went broke in the experiment at 181 games. (Bankroll for this not relevant to what is available on Neteller or Stars.)

Despite the final results, I feel the experiment was valid and provided some interesting information. My current experiment at $22 is going well. (I will not report results because of the very small sample, only 16 games so far, but the results are way way up.)

I do not feel the $33 game is out of my comfort zone at this time, but it is out of my bankroll zone. I have intentionally played these experiments on a very short bankroll. 9 buyins in exp 1, and 12 in exp 2. When I reach a point where the bankroll seems comfortable (25 buyins x $33?) I will no doubt move back up to the $33s.

Doc