ROI for 100+9 on Party Poker

[hhboy77]

for regular readers of this thread, i'm guessing that another roi question is the last thing they want to see.

however, from what i've seen all of the discussions so far have been slightly flawed because they aren't exact enough. they usually ask what is your roi/itm, but don't make any mention of what site they play on, what buy-in they play and how big their sample size is.

my hope is to restrict this discussion to only 100+9 players on party poker, that way we can be get more accurate figures on what is a good rate. please have at least 100 tournaments when responding.

my numbers:

38.6% itm
23.1% roi
114 tournaments

my numbers aren't all that different than at the 50+5 level, which was over something like 500 tourneys.

[Irieguy]

The number of responses to this thread is quite telling. You are asking for responses only from people who are A: playing $109 limits, and B: winning over a significant number of trials.

My best estimate is that there are a dozen of those people in the world. (I'm not one of them)

Irieguy

[adanthar]

There's at least four to six on this board, but yeah, there aren't really enough of them for this thread to take off.

FWIW, most people who are playing/multitabling for a living seem to be congregated in the 30's and 50's. It just seems easier to pull multitabling off here than it is at the 100 or 200 level.

[ShootingAce]

My last 100 100+9 on party gives

ITM 41%
ROI 27,6%

i dont believe that most people living on poker does that on 30/50 just to be able to multitable. I make a whole lot more / hour by playing 2 100+9 than playing 4 50/30 and that must be true for more people than me...

BTW im starting to go up in the 200+15 but havent got 100 tourneys there yet. that step seems to make a larger difference in tightness/ well player than 50 up to 100.. maybe you make more on the 100 tables due to worse players, i dont know yet..

it just cant be possible to get that good figures roi/itm with that competition...

BR

[Gramps]

114 tournies is much too small a sample size to draw conclusions from as far as your LT win rate, but it is possible to sustain those numbers over the long haul. The 100's are definitely more beatable than the 200s, as they lack the solid group of regulars who populate the 200 games.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of responses to this thread is quite telling. You are asking for responses only from people who are A: playing $109 limits, and B: winning over a significant number of trials.

My best estimate is that there are a dozen of those people in the world. (I'm not one of them)

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nuts. There's plenty of people just on this board that win long-term at $109.

eastbay

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
That's nuts. There's plenty of people just on this board that win long-term at $109.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing. I can name a dozen off the top of my head.

[hhboy77]

i agree that 100 tournaments is quite a small sample, but i didn't figure the response would be that great anyway so making the baseline 500 tournaments would have been useless cause no one responded.

i will say i played four tourneys and raised my roi 3 percent.

i don't know a dozen off the top of my head who make decent money playing 100 sng's, but i do know a handful and none have responded except eastbay, and he didn't post any numbers.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree that 100 tournaments is quite a small sample, but i didn't figure the response would be that great anyway so making the baseline 500 tournaments would have been useless cause no one responded.

i will say i played four tourneys and raised my roi 3 percent.

i don't know a dozen off the top of my head who make decent money playing 100 sng's, but i do know a handful and none have responded except eastbay, and he didn't post any numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually a $55 player, primarily.

I think you're doing very well to start.

My first foray into the $109s left me with something like 3% ROI over 100 tournaments - it _felt_ like a very bad run, but I wasn't about to trust my feelings completely, and I did notice the competition being significantly tougher. I then gave up and went back to $55s for a few months. My second foray into the $109s I was doing much better, something like 25% ROI, but had an emergency bankroll drawdown that put me back in the $55s for awhile.

I just started playing the $109s again a few days ago. So really, I don't know where I stand in the $109s to any real degree of certainty yet, but I'd be quite happy to start with a baseline of 20% and try to work up from there.

eastbay

[T0asty]

*Bump*

Interesting thread, how many STT players are playing the $109s now ?

I've dabbled in them before while playing ring games for a small ROI but nothing conclusive.

If there are people playing these regularly i'd be interested in your results.

Thanks

[Irieguy]

100 or so SNGs is not enough from which to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I maintain my previous assertion that there aren't very many people that can tell you (or be willing to tell you) how they've done over their last 500 or more SNGs at the $109 level.

Based on the few threads I have seen reviewing a significant number of trials at the $109+ levels, and my own experience over a significant number of trials at the $55 level; It would seem that the following would be reasonable:

If you are winning at the $55 level for more than 500 SNGs with an ITM% of around 40% and an ROI of around 20-25%, you can probably expect for your ITM% to drop 1-3% and your ROI to drop 5-10% when you move up.

The limit of possibility at that level is probably an ITM% of around 42-44%, and an ROI of 25%-30%. You would have to be among the best in the world to acheive those types of numbers... but it should be very possible to do about half as well (ROI).

I don't have a signficant amount of $109 data yet, so this is just conjecture... but I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that this isn't pretty close.

Irieguy