Can A Good $50-200s Player Make $55-$60 A Day At...

[Desdia72]

the $5 + $.50 level on Stars or the $5 + $1 on Party? i'm interested because i was told by quite a few players that a personal goal of $50 a day at that level is unrealistic. wanted to know some of y'all opinions on that.

[stupidsucker]

depends on how many you play.

I expect nothing less then a 35% RoI at the 5+1, and I play 30 a day, so I would make over $50 a day..

But.. I think its silly to even think about playing 5's when you can play 10's. I guess if you have a very limited bankroll then play 5's till you can afford 10's... Then $100/day goal is still very atainable if you have 6-8 hours to devote to it AND you can 4table.

If you cant fit in at least 30 a day then I would say $50 a day is unreachable.

Edit note: This is based on party, I know nothing of stars other then it takes much longer therefor I think even harder to achieve your goal at stars.

[Desdia72]

where you place. most people feel that if you are close to 50% ITM on a consistent basis, then you're a good/great player. sense i play on Stars, i'll post this possibility.

for example, you're a pretty steady upper limit SNG player placing 40% ITM at the $100 + $9 level. let's say you play 20 $5 + $.50 SNGs and place in 50% of them. 4 wins, 4 2nds, and 3 3rds will net you $61 profit over recoup of buyins. considering the skill factor and sophistication of higher limit players over lower limit ones, can a bigger limit player accomplish this goal consistently?

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
depends on how many you play.

I expect nothing less then a 35% RoI at the 5+1, and I play 30 a day, so I would make over $50 a day..

But.. I think its silly to even think about playing 5's when you can play 10's. I guess if you have a very limited bankroll then play 5's till you can afford 10's... Then $100/day goal is still very atainable if you have 6-8 hours to devote to it AND you can 4table.

If you cant fit in at least 30 a day then I would say $50 a day is unreachable.

Edit note: This is based on party, I know nothing of stars other then it takes much longer therefor I think even harder to achieve your goal at stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

bankroll issues are irrelevant. let's just say, one day the bigger limit player decided to test/challenge this thread's question to see if it could be done.

[ChessMan]

I don't know. Maybe you should try playing 20 to 40 games and see what the results are. The $2+0.20 games at Pacific Poker are so easy I think if I had ten computers, I could play 10 at a time. My ROI is 87% after 36 games.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Maybe you should try playing 20 to 40 games and see what the results are. The $2+0.20 games at Pacific Poker are so easy I think if I had ten computers, I could play 10 at a time. My ROI is 87% after 36 games.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not a $50-$200 level player. this thread (question) is directed toward them.

[AtlBrvs4Life]

At Stars the SNGs take longer, but the rake is less than Party (I'm talking about the $5 SNGs). I would say if you play 25+ a day, it is definately possible to make that amount on either Party of Stars. Of course, if you can do that, move up to the $10 SNGs as soon as you get the bank roll. Good luck.

[Jason Strasser]

Hah, That would be quite a feat. 10 buy ins in a day is a sweet day. Maybe on a rainy day...

[ZeeJustin]

I could easily do $50 per day at the $5+1 level.

[stupidsucker]

I am averaging just under 10 buy ins a day at the 20's now that I have been consistantly playing 30 a day. Today was just horrible horrible though and I posted my first losing day in a long time after playing only 23. (only lost $100)


But this is of course at the 20's .. I could never make 10 buy ins a day at the 200's Id have to play Im guessing 60 a day in order to do that.(assuming I would do well at all, which is NO guarontee for sure)

Im not sure I follow this hypothetical question very well, but If I get the jist of it.. Yes almost any winning SnG player (roi of 30%+ above the 10's) could easily make $50 a day at the 5's.

but why would anyone want to?

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
but why would anyone want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

The time it would take to make $50 at the $5 level would be for -EV for most of the winning higher limit SnG players.

Jason has a point though. If he made 10 buy in's a day, he would make $2000/day.

Not bad work if you can get it.

regards,
woodguy

[viennagreen]

$61 profit in 20 $5.50 sngs is a 55.5% ROI.

I don't think that many players would say that this is a sustainable win rate.

A very good ROI for low buy-in SNGs would be 40%.

At a 40% ROI, you would be averaging $2.20 per tourney, so you would have to play 23 tourneys a day to average $50/day.

by playing 4 at a time on Party, you can average 5 or 6 SNGs per hour, so you should be able make around $11/hr at that ROI.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I am averaging just under 10 buy ins a day at the 20's now that I have been consistantly playing 30 a day. Today was just horrible horrible though and I posted my first losing day in a long time after playing only 23. (only lost $100)


But this is of course at the 20's .. I could never make 10 buy ins a day at the 200's Id have to play Im guessing 60 a day in order to do that.(assuming I would do well at all, which is NO guarontee for sure)

Im not sure I follow this hypothetical question very well, but If I get the jist of it.. Yes almost any winning SnG player (roi of 30%+ above the 10's) could easily make $50 a day at the 5's.

but why would anyone want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

i posed the question because i'm pretty good at the $5 level on Stars and was told that goal for me is unrealistic. so if i can't do it, can a more experienced, bigger limit player do it? it's not about -EV, it's about whether it could be done or not.

[Eder]

What is your table name there? I've had many $50 days at that level tempered by many -$20 days...overall I cant seem to do better than 40-50% ROI there...so bout $2/hour lol...good thing I have a job

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your table name there? I've had many $50 days at that level tempered by many -$20 days...overall I cant seem to do better than 40-50% ROI there...so bout $2/hour lol...good thing I have a job

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i'm not playing enough SNGs a day to come close to averaging or making $55 a day. when i say i'm a pretty good player at this level, that statement is based on how well i do placing ITM. i never really sat down and counted up my ROI because i've done some withdrawals but i placed in 43% of the past 100 SNGs that i've played with some including cashes and wins at $6 + $.50 and $10 + $1.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
bankroll issues are irrelevant. let's just say, one day the bigger limit player decided to test/challenge this thread's question to see if it could be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did he would have to play for many days to achieve any conclusiveness in his data.

Regards ML

PS like many others i feel this is impossible, over the long term.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I could easily do $50 per day at the $5+1 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you could, most days anyway, but certainly not in 20 sngs.

Regards ML

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could easily do $50 per day at the $5+1 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you could, most days anyway, but certainly not in 20 sngs.

Regards ML

[/ QUOTE ]

so the consensus is, even a great higher limit player would have to play more than 20+ SNGs a day to average this profit AND even he could'nt sustain it over the long run.

[mackthefork]

ZeeJustin thinks he can, I am not arguing with him, if he says he could he probably can. But i think he plays about 4-8 at a time.

Regards ML

PS 40% ROI is easy there you know how many you need to play,
about 30 sngs would do it, but those guys can drive you insane, with their incapacity to fold.

Regards ML

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty good at the $5 level on Stars

[/ QUOTE ]

Cough...cough

Be careful with such statements. "Pretty good" and "$5 level" are almost mutually exclusive.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Bad" and "Appalling" are words that come to mind facing most of the players there (though, to be sure, they are better than the Party versions).

I don't doubt you can "beat" the $5 level but I am unsure the standard there has ever reached "good", nor requires it.

No insult intended. Just my observation.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Phill S]

im not up to the 200s by any stretch, however:

if my results for the 6.5 turbos at stars are any indication i could probably do it in the 5s.

i dont have the exact figures, my laptop is elsewhere and has all my records in it, but i did an experiement playing them long term just to see what id get for ITMs and ROIs.

from what i remember they indicate its possible, the biggest thing i cant calculate is the difference overall between the two buy ins.

ie, 6.5 is around twice as fast to conclusion, the competition is exactly the same, however there is a lower percentage rake.

however its all accademic. i dont intend to prove this one way or another, and i doubt anyone else would like to.

but its a very good question of theoretical terms. ie can you turn a 100 dollar buy in into a consistant salary of 15K+ (based on a 6 day week, with the occasional holiday).

of course if you can youll be moving up to higher levels, but i like it.

Phill

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty good at the $5 level on Stars

[/ QUOTE ]

Cough...cough

Be careful with such statements. "Pretty good" and "$5 level" are almost mutually exclusive.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Bad" and "Appalling" are words that come to mind facing most of the players there (though, to be sure, they are better than the Party versions).

I don't doubt you can "beat" the $5 level but I am unsure the standard there has ever reached "good", nor requires it.

No insult intended. Just my observation.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

notice how when someone makes a response to a thread in this manner, they say , "no offense intended" or "no insult intended" but when you read the post it seems that that's exactly the way it comes off?

[adanthar]

I'm pretty sure I've seen people posting 50% ROI's over 100-200 5+1/10+1's. Even if the real long term max is 40%, it's more than doable in something like 4-5 hours a day.

Since the quality of play is pretty much identical(ly bad) at 10+1, though, a better question would be 'can a good 100+9 SNG player make $125 a day at 10+1'?

[naphand]

No it does not....it is just the way you want to look at it. There was no malice in this post, but perhaps you could read that I was suggesting that beating the $5 games does not define anyone as good, just better than very bad players. Of course this could include anything from bad to world class - I don't know - but as a comparison against "terrible" you do not need to reach "good".

Chill out a bit. There are a few posts in here where folks are going waaaay overboard with their punctured ego's, lighten up a bit. My post was intended to be light-hearted and your post was, what? When you are confident of your own ability, you won't feel so attacked by wise-cracks like this.

Too many angery young men, not enough cool dudes.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
No it does not....it is just the way you want to look at it. There was no malice in this post, but perhaps you could read that I was suggesting that beating the $5 games does not define anyone as good, just better than very bad players. Of course this could include anything from bad to world class - I don't know - but as a comparison against "terrible" you do not need to reach "good".

Chill out a bit. There are a few posts in here where folks are going waaaay overboard with their punctured ego's, lighten up a bit. My post was intended to be light-hearted and your post was, what? When you are confident of your own ability, you won't feel so attacked by wise-cracks like this.

Too many angery young men, not enough cool dudes.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

why say there is no malice in this post, then say, "When you are confident in your own ability, you won't feel so attacked by wise-cracks like this?" if your post was'nt meant to project malice or offense, then there would be no need to even bring up WISE-CRACK. i never took offense to what you said in the first place, i only remarked how normally when someone posts what you posted--- even despite stating the contrary of trying to offend or putdown--- it ends up looking the exact way it sounded. to COUGH*COUGH at someone saying their good at this level does'nt sound like you're coming off as nonbiased or nuetral, it sounds like a poke at and somewhat condescending. go back at read some of my earlier posts so that you can see where i'm coming from when i say, "I'm pretty good at this level". obviously, if the competition at this level is so awful, every $50-$200 limit SNG player should be able to wipe the slate clean at this level just by sneezing.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I've seen people posting 50% ROI's over 100-200 5+1/10+1's. Even if the real long term max is 40%, it's more than doable in something like 4-5 hours a day.

Since the quality of play is pretty much identical(ly bad) at 10+1, though, a better question would be 'can a good 100+9 SNG player make $125 a day at 10+1'?

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, you can ask that question. my reason for asking the question is, if i'm a pretty good player (43% ITM) at the $5 + .05 level against what is apparently bad competition, how would a pretty good higher limit fare against the same competition? *(this also includes being told that although i'm a good player at this level $50-$55 a day is an unreasonable goal)

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin thinks he can, I am not arguing with him, if he says he could he probably can. But i think he plays about 4-8 at a time.

Regards ML

PS 40% ROI is easy there you know how many you need to play,
about 30 sngs would do it, but those guys can drive you insane, with their incapacity to fold.

Regards ML

[/ QUOTE ]

PS players at the $5 + $.50 level are'nt that bad. yeah, you do run into some tables where there's alot of calling stations, raising with marginal hands, and calling raises with marginal hands but that's expected at this level. i hear Party has an ocean full of sardines and anchovies at the lower level. the question i poise is, despite all that, can a skillful and more savvy higher limit player overcome all that to make that amount a day?

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
it ends up looking the exact way it sounded

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, its ends up reading exactly the way you want it to. My comment was light-hearted, if you wish to see as some kind of personal attack, then feel free to, it does not bother me, as I cannot control the way you view the world. Perhaps you are a spoilt brat who has never matured sufficiently to cope with criticism (or even the slightest hint of it) on any level, I don't know, but that is one conclusion I could draw (though I choose not to, yet). I repeat, when you have enough confidence in your own ability, you won't be affected by what other people say, at least in this way. Your knee-jerk response, and continuing apoplexy, suggest you are too sensitive, too keen to impress. Just relax, stop reading into things intent that does not exist. I have already said twice that there was no malice intended. I have played a lot of SH $1/$2 on Party and elsewhere, if someone told me it does not take much skill to beat that level, in fact anyone with a modicum of competence could do it, I would agree. I would be expected to move up and play more profitable games.

What are you looking for, a grovelling apology? I fail to see the need to apologise when no malice was intended. If you want to blow off over a harmless little jab like this, then that is your prerogative. I cannot imagine what you must be like after a few bad-beats.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif


[ QUOTE ]
obviously, if the competition at this level is so awful, every $50-$200 limit SNG player should be able to wipe the slate clean at this level just by sneezing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand the probabilities involved in poker, if this is truly what you believe. And as for $/hour, I think most would find the profit level too low. Of course, if you just want to be seen as a "winning player", or are comfortable playing at this limit for $$ reasons, then fine. I'm going to read this for what it is, a meaningless meander away from a somewhat hazy post which I am not entirely sure is anything more than a childish tantrum.

Jings Crivvens.....my post was meant for humour. It also happens to be mostly true. It says nothing of your ability, assumes nothing about your ability. The fact is, it does not take much abilty to beat bad games. If you spend all your time playing in poor games, your game will only improve so far. There are tremendous depths to poker, most of us I think are only just becoming aware of this fact, let alone understanding it. Bad schools produce bad players. If you want your game to develop, you will need to move up. After playing in better games for 6 months, go back to your previous level and you will see just how soft the games really are.

It's good you have a big ego. I think it is rare to come across a good poker player who doesn't have a big ego/high opinion of themselves. It might even be a requirement. So it certainly should not be a handicap. But save yourself all that bile production, by avoiding hating people for sayting things you don't like/agree. Life is much sweeter when you give people the benefit of the doubt.

I leave you with:

"Satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah"

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[naphand]

I think it's a moot point. The more skilful/savvy players will play at a level where they get more $/hour.

But your point is an interesting one to ponder, if only from the "what is the theoretical maximum earn" angle. However, setting a flat $$ amount does not take account of multi-tabling. I think the figure people need to concentrate on is ROI.

Once you know your ROI, reasonably accurately (even only as accurately as +/-20%), then it is just a matter of plugging in the average time for a tourney, and the hours you have available, plus how many tables you can play effectively at once.

You could work backwards. Work out a maximum number of tourneys that could be realistically played on a regular daily basis (8 hours/day, 4 tables at once, 2 hours tourney etc.) then calculate the ROI required to meet the $50 target. The benefit of this approach is that you get to produce a valid target (ROI) you can uses to accurately judge ytour own game. Whether that ROI is realistic, is perhaps a question for the more experienced posters. Though many would contribute to the debate, I am sure.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it ends up looking the exact way it sounded

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, its ends up reading exactly the way you want it to. My comment was light-hearted, if you wish to see as some kind of personal attack, then feel free to, it does not bother me, as I cannot control the way you view the world. Perhaps you are a spoilt brat who has never matured sufficiently to cope with criticism (or even the slightest hint of it) on any level, I don't know, but that is one conclusion I could draw (though I choose not to, yet). I repeat, when you have enough confidence in your own ability, you won't be affected by what other people say, at least in this way. Your knee-jerk response, and continuing apoplexy, suggest you are too sensitive, too keen to impress. Just relax, stop reading into things intent that does not exist. I have already said twice that there was no malice intended. I have played a lot of SH $1/$2 on Party and elsewhere, if someone told me it does not take much skill to beat that level, in fact anyone with a modicum of competence could do it, I would agree. I would be expected to move up and play more profitable games.

What are you looking for, a grovelling apology? I fail to see the need to apologise when no malice was intended. If you want to blow off over a harmless little jab like this, then that is your prerogative. I cannot imagine what you must be like after a few bad-beats.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif


[ QUOTE ]
obviously, if the competition at this level is so awful, every $50-$200 limit SNG player should be able to wipe the slate clean at this level just by sneezing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand the probabilities involved in poker, if this is truly what you believe. And as for $/hour, I think most would find the profit level too low. Of course, if you just want to be seen as a "winning player", or are comfortable playing at this limit for $$ reasons, then fine. I'm going to read this for what it is, a meaningless meander away from a somewhat hazy post which I am not entirely sure is anything more than a childish tantrum.

Jings Crivvens.....my post was meant for humour. It also happens to be mostly true. It says nothing of your ability, assumes nothing about your ability. The fact is, it does not take much abilty to beat bad games. If you spend all your time playing in poor games, your game will only improve so far. There are tremendous depths to poker, most of us I think are only just becoming aware of this fact, let alone understanding it. Bad schools produce bad players. If you want your game to develop, you will need to move up. After playing in better games for 6 months, go back to your previous level and you will see just how soft the games really are.

It's good you have a big ego. I think it is rare to come across a good poker player who doesn't have a big ego/high opinion of themselves. It might even be a requirement. So it certainly should not be a handicap. But save yourself all that bile production, by avoiding hating people for sayting things you don't like/agree. Life is much sweeter when you give people the benefit of the doubt.

I leave you with:

"Satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah"

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

it really sounds to me that you're talking just to hear yourself talk or, better yet, to dart out verbal jabs at someone that's not even involved in this pay-per-view bout.
once again, i don't take offense to what you said but it's obvious you wanna take what's NOT SO and make it APPEAR that way. i'm not really concerned with whether you were TRYING to INJECT humor or not, i only merely pointed out that people who make a post the way you do come off sarcastically, then turn around and say it's not meant to be that way. if anything, you're the one that's flying off the deep end talking about tantrums, big egos, bile productions, and hating people and what not (where'd that come from?). you took my response back as me getting upset and then running with it without regard for whether what you were thinking or believing was actually true. to sum up my response, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck--- it's a duck".
that's just my personal opinion. if your statement was an attempt at humor, consider me forewarned. no need to start preaching some self-righteous sermon up on a pulpit. it ain't that serious.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it ends up looking the exact way it sounded

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, its ends up reading exactly the way you want it to. My comment was light-hearted, if you wish to see as some kind of personal attack, then feel free to, it does not bother me, as I cannot control the way you view the world. Perhaps you are a spoilt brat who has never matured sufficiently to cope with criticism (or even the slightest hint of it) on any level, I don't know, but that is one conclusion I could draw (though I choose not to, yet). I repeat, when you have enough confidence in your own ability, you won't be affected by what other people say, at least in this way. Your knee-jerk response, and continuing apoplexy, suggest you are too sensitive, too keen to impress. Just relax, stop reading into things intent that does not exist. I have already said twice that there was no malice intended. I have played a lot of SH $1/$2 on Party and elsewhere, if someone told me it does not take much skill to beat that level, in fact anyone with a modicum of competence could do it, I would agree. I would be expected to move up and play more profitable games.

What are you looking for, a grovelling apology? I fail to see the need to apologise when no malice was intended. If you want to blow off over a harmless little jab like this, then that is your prerogative. I cannot imagine what you must be like after a few bad-beats.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif


[ QUOTE ]
obviously, if the competition at this level is so awful, every $50-$200 limit SNG player should be able to wipe the slate clean at this level just by sneezing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand the probabilities involved in poker, if this is truly what you believe. And as for $/hour, I think most would find the profit level too low. Of course, if you just want to be seen as a "winning player", or are comfortable playing at this limit for $$ reasons, then fine. I'm going to read this for what it is, a meaningless meander away from a somewhat hazy post which I am not entirely sure is anything more than a childish tantrum.

Jings Crivvens.....my post was meant for humour. It also happens to be mostly true. It says nothing of your ability, assumes nothing about your ability. The fact is, it does not take much abilty to beat bad games. If you spend all your time playing in poor games, your game will only improve so far. There are tremendous depths to poker, most of us I think are only just becoming aware of this fact, let alone understanding it. Bad schools produce bad players. If you want your game to develop, you will need to move up. After playing in better games for 6 months, go back to your previous level and you will see just how soft the games really are.

It's good you have a big ego. I think it is rare to come across a good poker player who doesn't have a big ego/high opinion of themselves. It might even be a requirement. So it certainly should not be a handicap. But save yourself all that bile production, by avoiding hating people for sayting things you don't like/agree. Life is much sweeter when you give people the benefit of the doubt.

I leave you with:

"Satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah"

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

out of the equation. if i came across your comment and it was directed at another forumer, i would have made the SAME OBSERVATION. it has nothing to do with my poker skills or me taking offense to such and such. anything outside of, "Well, we can agree to disagree because my obvious intent was not to come off as such" is unnecessary. simply put, the way you wrote it sounded like it was meant to be condescending to ME, regardless of saying you were'nt trying to in the post. anytime i run across posts like yours, that's my first thought. that's one of the reasons i don't care too much for poster on RGP because they take the HUMOR bit to the extreme to responding to certain people and it comes off more OFFENSIVE than cute.

[mackthefork]

I agree in a way, but you won't make 40% roi at these levels if you are not much better than the 'simply awful' players that make up the majority. Anyone who says you will is out of touch with reality, luck runs out eventually, and even bad players get good cards.

Regards ML

[mackthefork]

I dunno man, you'd only have 10 posts if you didn't argue so much, do you practice in the mirror. I bet you'd argue with a man who told you not to smoke in a fireworks factory /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Best Regards ML

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno man, you'd only have 10 posts if you didn't argue so much, do you practice in the mirror. I bet you'd argue with a man who told you not to smoke in a fireworks factory /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Best Regards ML

[/ QUOTE ]

Desdia argue? nawwwwwwwwww c'mon!

http://www.internettexasholdem.com/~internet/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5470&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=0


http://www.internettexasholdem.com/~internet/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5080&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=0

http://www.internettexasholdem.com/~internet/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3291&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=0

[naphand]

OK fair enough, but I particularly enjoy humour that skirts of the edge of being offensive. I like to make people laugh, but extract a price in that the receiver is usually never sure if he should be laughing or squirming (or upset).

I intend to stick around on this forum (SNG) for a bit, as I have found tourneys a refreshing change from the SH games I usually play. I am no expert, so consider this a just a shot over the bows and take future posts with a pinch of salt. You will be left in no doubt when I am being offensive, but hopefully it never comes to that.

I like good debate, and that often means I say controversial things or play Devil's Advocate, as good debate is a fantastic tool for getting to grips with the subtleties of the game. Some people's ego's are easily bruised, but for some reason that never stops me.... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Enjoy, and hope to tee-off with you again on perhaps a more relevant and productive issue.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[naphand]

40% ROI, yep you are definitely a notch or three above the players. I am not suggesting that anyone who can consistently beat the $5 SNG's is a bad player, merely that good players will typically be found at higher limits, or move up pretty quickly. Of course, some players could actually be quite good at $5 SNG, but there is no real way of telling until they face better quality opponents.

Playing against poor quality opposition will not do a great deal for your game, nor will it demonstrate more than a basic level of competence. I think, for those seriously wanting to improve their game, playing higher limits is a necessity. It is easy to think that, because you are a winner, you are also a "good" player. It's like the difference between playing the local pitch-and-putt and a round at Sawgrass. Funny thing is, I found the posh golf courses easier to play than the rock-hard narrow fairways of my cheap local....so I guess it can work both ways... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[naphand]

I read the second of the two links you gave, and I'm wondering, is Desdia72 really Mike Muir?

As I read the posts, the lyrics of "Institutionalized" came to mind. For those that don't know of this teen-angst classic, it begins...

"Sometimes I try to do things and it just doesn't work out the way I wanted to.
I get real frustrated and I try hard to do it and I take my time and it doesn't work out the way I wanted to.
It's like I concentrate real hard and it doesn't work out
Everything I do and everything I try never turns out..."

Tee-hee... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It is easy to think that, because you are a winner, you are also a "good" player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say i was, ordinary maybe at best.

BTW if you want to practice staying off tilt, try a few $5 SNGs (good for the soul).

Regards ML

[playerfl]

So how many are you playing at one time ?

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
So how many are you playing at one time ?

[/ QUOTE ]

the consensus is you have to multi-table to reach this goal.

[naphand]

Maybe. I think a couple of days off and some good poker reading is a good antidote to pent up rage. On the other hand, tourneys don't offer much chance to suffer a string of bad beats, 2 or 3 is usually enough, so not much chance to get too upset, maybe you have a point....

Ring games on the other hand, offer endless possibilities for bad beats and tilt-opportunity. I do think a change of scenery (from limit ring, to NL tourneys) is refreshing. Even though my bad-beat tolerance is much higher than of old, I have come to see them a sign of how awful my opponents are, sometimes it can be quite a drag. I usually quit if I feel I am getting tempted to play at people, and in this sense tourneys do offer a chance to vent some aggression....it's the whole "finality" thang /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[playerfl]

either that or play 15 hours a day, every day.

I think you could make more per hour working at Walmart since you would get overtime /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
either that or play 15 hours a day, every day.

I think you could make more per hour working at Walmart since you would get overtime /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

that's true, but for a serious player starting out trying to get their feet wet with $5 SNGs, these could be a nice bankroll builder to bigger and better things.

[Rick Diesel]

[ QUOTE ]
let's say you play 20 $5 + $.50 SNGs and place in 50% of them. 4 wins, 4 2nds, and 3 3rds will net you $61 profit over recoup of buyins. considering the skill factor and sophistication of higher limit players over lower limit ones, can a bigger limit player accomplish this goal consistently?

[/ QUOTE ]

4 wins, 4 2nds, and 3 3rds would mean that you placed in 11/20 or 55%, not 50%.

[berya]

x