Online Tournament Pros

[jakethebake]

From reading the posts it seems that most of the pros here multi-table limit games. Do many of you play NL? And are there online tournament pros? If so what buy-ins do you mostly play? Single-table SNGs or larger multi-table tournaeys? What kind of bankroll do you have relative to that? Anything else relevant? Just curious how it works for you and why.

[dogsballs]

You'll get lots of different answers here from folks playing various limits. I think there are plenty who make a living off sng's; not as sure about multi's though.

I mix em up but most of my $$ comes from 55 and 109 SNG's. Does me well. I suspect there are probably good players making a good living off 10 and 20's.

I try to keep about 50 buy ins hanging around, but it's not that necessary to have that much.

[Klak]

i think theres more ring game pros becuase it is much harder to win consistantly at sngs, especially the party ones with the blinds going crazy after 15 minutes. that isnt to say that there arent consistent sng winners, its just a little more random than cash games.

[dogsballs]

I dunno about that. I've found I have fairly consistent winning days with SNG's. Perhaps one of 6 is a losing day, if that, playing ~30 SNG's/day.

[smoore]

Holy crap! You play ~30 a day? As a recently unemployed guy who fancies himself a "playa", I have been entertaining the notion of making my living from SnG play. If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a little:

1) What are your approximate monthly expenses?
2) How many months do you keep in reserve?
3) What buy-in level do you play and what is your ~ROI?

I would play ring games instead, but I'm much more successful (read: winnar!) at tournament style play, especially when I'm running bad. There's nothing quite like cashing in a SnG when the best hand you've had all along is AJs /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[lorinda]

i think theres more ring game pros becuase it is much harder to win consistantly at sngs, especially the party ones with the blinds going crazy after 15 minutes. that isnt to say that there arent consistent sng winners, its just a little more random than cash games.

I don't think this is accurate, my SD for the same win rate is almost identical in LHE ring and NL SNG.
NL ring is, of course a considerably lower Standard Deviation.

Lori

[Klak]

limit ring game play is mostly mechanical. you dont have to make many plays or bluffs, and you dont have to switch gears. this is why i think limit ring games hold less varience. a ten man sng with rapidly escallating blinds generally takes a little skill out of the game. plus its much easier to play 4 tables of limit than it is to play 4 sngs.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
imit ring game play is mostly mechanical. you dont have to make many plays or bluffs, and you dont have to switch gears. this is why i think limit ring games hold less varience. a ten man sng with rapidly escallating blinds generally takes a little skill out of the game. plus its much easier to play 4 tables of limit than it is to play 4 sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true.

Edit: or more accurately - as a generalization, it is not true.

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
1) What are your approximate monthly expenses?
2) How many months do you keep in reserve?
3) What buy-in level do you play and what is your ~ROI?

[/ QUOTE ]


1) I take out 1k/wk
2) Trying to keep 100 buy ins total BR. But I also play various ring games up to 5/10 PL (but not so often there).
3) 55+5's and 105+9's mainly. ROI% low 30's.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]


1) What are your approximate monthly expenses?
2) How many months do you keep in reserve?
3) What buy-in level do you play and what is your ~ROI?



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you forgot to ask for his social security number too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lorinda]

this is why i think limit ring games hold less varience

You also call for more flushes, more straights, call for value, bet for value and play every marginal scenario to it's maximum potential.

At ITM of 50%, you are 127-1 to have a streak of seven games out of the money, and even then you only lose $66 (Using the assumption that these are $11 games)

How often do you go $66 behind in 1/2 LHE to win $4 per hour?

Edit: Of course, I mean $77

Lori

[sofere]

I'm curious how you can play 30 SnGs a day? Of the 9 or 10 person SnGs i've played ($5-$10 buy-in) its almost always taken over an hour to make the money. With 30 SnGs assuming 50% ITM, that's already 15 hours. I'm just curious if your playing shorthanded or if they take shorter at the higher buy-ins.

[dogsballs]

3/4 at a time turbos

[viennagreen]

At Party, multi-tabling 4 at a time, you can usually play at least 5 sngs/hr...

30 sngs/day is about 6 hrs. of playing

I haven't stepped up yet and tried playing more than 4 tables at a time, but there are many here that play 8 tables--- so 30 sngs would only be about 3 hrs of work.

[sofere]

Ah, gotcha...didn't think about multi tabling SnGs. I tried doing 2 at once one time...got such a headache...never tried it again /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Not to mention i'm not near good enuf to multi

[J.A.Sucker]

You couldn't be more wrong. I know firsthand how the SNG's compare to ring games, BTW.

[The Yugoslavian]

Umm, as others have posted, your statement is wrong given a player equally good at ring games and sngs. Some possible reasons there are more ring pros than sng pros are:

1. SNGs are comparatively *very* new to the scene
2. There is infinitely more literature on ring games so it is more readily learned
3. There can be fairly objective arguments made that on average, it may be easier to multi ring games
4. There are ring games with comparative stakes that are much higher than the highest SNG stakes (so more room for growth)

However, I'm pretty sure crazy blinds, and randomness are not reasons for why there are more ring pros. First, theoretically, there is a lower bankroll requirement for SNGs due to less variance (assumptions must be made but this has been discussed elsewhere). This actually supports why a pro would *rather* play SNGs because he/she would want to have as little $$ tied up as possible in a bankroll.

Your argument could possibly work if when you say 'it is much harder to win consistantly at sngs' you mean that they require a broader set of skills and adaptation to play properly -- my roomate and I have argued about this quite a bit in fact -- and therefore are just 'harder' in that way.

SNGs with crazy blind structures may seem more 'arbitrary' b/c they require you to play much looser in many areas of the SNG -- much, much looser than one would play a ring game.

[stupidsucker]

I have made my living at SnGs officially since June.

I try to force myself to play 150/week (4tabling) but I normally only play 450ish/month. (I am too lazy)

I am currently at the 30s/50s level depending on my bankroll at the given time. You really have to prepare when this is your only source of income.

For instance... I am currently 600 miles away from home. My car broke down and I immeadiatly dropped down th toe 30s after taking out $1700 preparing for the worst for a auto bill.

To be an online pro takes a lot of bankroll/money management skills. I wish I was better at it.

I was recently thinking of expanding to NL ring games (10 handed) and I will be starting a seperate post talking about the differences.

[Gramps]

I used to 3-table 6-max games full time for about 4 months before I switched over to NL SNGs. I found limit a bit more of a grind for the hours I was putting in, because it's a bit more mechanical (IMO), and you have a more decisions to make when you're involved in a hand (have to concentrate harder/longer).

I've only been playing SNGs full time for 3 months, and the swings/suckouts can be frustrating at times, but I find it's easier on the brain (even 4-tabling), and the decisions you do have to make are more complex and mentally stimulating (in an enjoyable kind of way). There's kind of an "LSAT logic games" aspect to it that I like.

My month-to-month variance has been kind of sick when compared to my ring game play (which was 50,000 hands per month), but that's a price I'm willing to pay. Even the highest levels of SNGs on Party have their share of bad/reckless players to make them plenty profitable.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
There's kind of an "LSAT logic games" aspect to it that I like.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am by no means a "pro" in any regard...nor do I have the tools yet to even try...but this comment made me think about something that I had been arguing about with friends recently as well. I feel that SNG NL is in one way much easier than ring and at the same time more complex. I think it benefits the better "thinking" player than does ring. As someone who was a "pro" at LSAT games sections (never not a perfect score, but couldnt do reading comp to save my life), I can easily say that STT NLhe is the closest thing in poker to this type of logical thinking around. (maybe Omaha h/l too). SNG NL is much less mechanical than ring...like LSAT games, you have to come up with your own method of logic and method of elimination of variables, whereas in ring, simply speaking, the method is always the same and U must simply follow it to be succesful. Very over simplified, but thats how I see it at its most basic level.

p

anyway, nice analogy.

That said

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I was recently thinking of expanding to NL ring games (10 handed) and I will be starting a seperate post talking about the differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll look forward to reading it. Thanks.

[Marcotte]

[ QUOTE ]
To be an online pro takes a lot of bankroll/money management skills. I wish I was better at it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This raises a question I've been thinking about for a while. How often do people (pros/semi-pros/ams) generally cash out? And do you leave your entire bankroll in the site(s) account(s) at all times? As with any business, there is an opportunity cost to having your money invested in poker (eg you can't invest your BR in stocks or CDs etc.). But does anybody cash out on a daily basis, putting their bankroll back in an interest-bearing account overnight? Or is the extra couple hundred dollars not worth it for the hassle?

[Lloyd]

I'm curious to find out people's opinions regarding playing the 2-table $50 SNGs or the 1-table $50 SNGs at Party. I see the advantage of the 2-tables being that the blinds don't rise so quickly so if you're not getting cards you have some time before you *have* to make a move. But with the 1-table games you 1) have to get past fewer people (obviously) and 2) finish more quickly.

Do people have a preference to maximize ROI?

[jakethebake]

Along those same lines, how about 2-table vs. 1-table vs. turbos???

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
This raises a question I've been thinking about for a while. How often do people (pros/semi-pros/ams) generally cash out? And do you leave your entire bankroll in the site(s) account(s) at all times? As with any business, there is an opportunity cost to having your money invested in poker (eg you can't invest your BR in stocks or CDs etc.). But does anybody cash out on a daily basis, putting their bankroll back in an interest-bearing account overnight? Or is the extra couple hundred dollars not worth it for the hassle?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will answer this as a semi-pro who will becoming full-time in the near future. I 6-table SnG's playing on Empire and Party both. I keep a bankroll on each of these sites equal to about 40-50 buyins. This is a little larger than would actually be required, but I keep it there. Once the balance on either site gets significantly higher than that, I cash it out.

Once I go full time and get more serious about it, I plan on cashing out all weekly winnings at the end of every week. This will help keep the paperwork simple so Uncle Sam can take his rake.

Generally I don't keep much more than I think I would ever need in any specific site, and keep the excess in Neteller if I am not cashing it out yet.

[Gramps]

Good to know there are other LSAT logic games "pros" out there, was afraid the reference was a bit vague (to those who haven't taken the LSAT plunge) but right on point. I "choked" and missed a question on the real test, but struggled more with the other sections (I honestly missed two different reading comp questions asking "what is this passage about"?)

In line with what you say about the similarities between the two, I liked what Dan Harrington said on the WSOP telecasts about hold em being a "partial information game." That describes well the similarity between HE and LSAT logic games - you're given partial information, and have to piece it together to arrive at the whole picture. I guess that's true in any form of poker, but in NL SNGs, it seems the variables are constantly changing (more so than the other games) - which means you're constantly having to reevaluate all the partial information in a new strategy/situation context - you move up blinds levels very quickly, encounter bubble situations, consider implications of relative stack sizes, payout structure, opponent tendecies and strategy shits/lack of, etc. If you have that logic game skill, you can be on top of it all, keep painting an accurate picture of things, and make good decisions...

[ThorGoT]

Gramps, are you not practicing now? Curious to know where you are in life and what kind of career decision you ended up making.

ThorGoT (who once had skills at LSAT logic games)

[Gramps]

I figured out during law school that I didn't want to be a lawyer long term...had a job out of school (and loans to pay...) ended up doing it for a couple of years, and was looking to do something else...had played about 5,000 games of Yahoo backgammon (and read a couple of books, but nothing too serious), and starting getting into poker after catching the WPT tour on Travel Channel (and having seen two final WSOP tables on ESPN without knowing what the f--- was going on as far as stratgey)...starting reading books over, and over, and over....started playing as a hobby....got good but not great...got pokertracker and started reading this forum and about people who multitabled 2/4....started doing that one the side....moved up to 5/10 6-max 3-tabling and quit my job (project work) as I was making more from poker and enjoying it much, much more....made a living off of that for 4 months before dabbling in SNGs and finding I could do well/liked the "logic game skill" aspect of it...have been doing SNGs 40-50 hours/week for the past 3 months and enjoy it...I'd probably only play 20-30 hours per week if it wasn't my job, but for me (but probably not for a lot of people) it kicks arse on a "real job." There's definitely a lot of stress/uncertainty that comes with it, but I roll with that pretty well and take a sick comfort in it (I also highly enjoy golf and the challenge/haze of working long hours to improve my game if that's an analogy anyone can identify with)...and I'm the sort that gets satisfaction out of being the "outside the box" guy...

...but my career goal is to never have to use a resume ever again in my life...so to each, his own. There's definitely a lot of risk/uncertainty that comes with poker as a career (short-term or long-term). I highly respect people that go the standard career route, enjoy the process, and succeed. And poker is a profession that requires a solid work ethic, no way around it. I tried the career path first, which I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone before doing poker for a living. I didn't like it, and a lot of people are probably better at doing the things necessary to suceed at that path than I. Playing 40-50 hours of poker per week (which I know is a grind for a lot of people) is very much enjoyable for me compared to working 40-50 hours per week in an office.

If the internet poker bubble bursts, so be it. Til then, I'll be putting in my hours, and loading money in my savings account and SEP IRA...then I'll do something else, TBA at a later time...and I'm comfortable with that..

...and (did I get totally off topic?) if your are good at LSAT logic games, then I think you're very well-suited for NL SNGs. Partial information game, variables constantly changing, always needing to re-analyze to paint a complete picture. 3 tables of 6-max was a borderline grind for me, NL SNGs (especially bubble play and inside the money) are a delight...preserve folding equity...always, ALWAYS (okay, there's exceptions, but most of the time...) preserve folding equity.

It's Halloween in SF, yes I'm hammered! No, I did not venture outside of Pac Heights/Marina/Haight.

Gramps

P.S. California 27, Arizona State 0

[lorinda]

If the internet poker bubble bursts, so be it. Til then, I'll be putting in my hours, and loading money in my savings account and SEP IRA...then I'll do something else, TBA at a later time...and I'm comfortable with that..


This is precisely the personality trait I was trying to describe /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori

[bismillahno]

[ QUOTE ]


It's Halloween in SF, yes I'm hammered! No, I did not venture outside of Pac Heights/Marina/Haight.


[/ QUOTE ]

I spent 2 1/2 years in the bay area (back home last xmas), and 3 straight halloweens in the castro were a serious highlight (just to clarify, not my usual part of town). Nothing quite like getting your photo taken with a bunch of strangers 50 times in a night coz they think your costumes cool. All while hammered as hell of course. Kiwis (New Zealanders) really don't know how to do halloween...

[Gramps]

Yeah, if you live in the Bay Area, you have to hang out in SF-Castro on Halloween at least once. To say it's a trip is understating things a bit, crazy carnival-type atmosphere...just lower your voice and start talking about hot chicks and football if you feel uncomfortable...

...I was taking preemptive action against any Castro-joke-replies...

...actually anywhere in SF on Halloween is fun. Even your more uptight/conservative folks seem to get into the creative-costume spirit.

[stupidsucker]

I was back in the bay for 3 weeks (Left right before Halloween) I wanted to give Vegas a shot for halloween.

It had promise, but the $$$ will cost you a LOT more in vegas then in SF area. Every club/party had a line backed out for hours, and they would only let a few in at a time based on when people would leave.

We dressed for a particular ball called "Sinners and Saints" that was at the Bellagio. Our costumes were awesome(IMNSHO). She dressed as a recent fallen angel. I was freaky looking evil looking guy in a robe holding her on a leash. We never got in, so we just wondered the strip. Had fun and only cost us the 4 bucks I spent on vallet.

This topic is offically off the mark now hehe. Gramps, I shoulda got a hold of you while I was in the bay, maybe we could have had another live game. I saw Dan a few times. He aslo helped me with rides because my car broke down while on the trip.

[pooh74]

"you're given partial information, and have to piece it together to arrive at the whole picture. I guess that's true in any form of poker, but in NL SNGs, it seems the variables are constantly changing (more so than the other games) - which means you're constantly having to reevaluate all the partial information in a new strategy/situation context - you move up blinds levels very quickly, encounter bubble situations, consider implications of relative stack sizes, payout structure, opponent tendecies and strategy shits/lack of, etc."

I guess now im officially off topic here...but. I think the above better exemplifies what I was trying to say. I think what is better about SNG NL is that there are always MORE variables than ring which creates for a more complex logic exercise on each hand and play. the player better equiped to handle, say, 4x more variables is going to fair better. Also, being able to understand how your logical thinking opponent puts these together will faciltate drawing more money out of them which is exponentially more possible than in ring.

This, of course, is all well and good...however, on LSAT games you end up with a "water tight" answer at the end. IOW, there is no other possible answer and you are rest assured that you are correct. there is never this confidence in poker. one can only arrive at better guesses or increase percentage of a proper play...and of course it can be disasterous no matter what...but this all goes without saying...just being master of the obvious.

p