Some S+G questions, $200's on up and ROI's (Pokerstars)

[OneStuckFish]

3 months after learning what a flush was I started out playing $5.50 sit and goes with an $11.00 transfer from a friend exactly 1 year ago. I forced myself to play at the same level until I had ten buy ins at the next level before I moved up. 1 year later without a single cash out yet, playing 2-3 a day or so, Im at the $200's. My ROI thru the limits were exactly 55% in the 5's, 55% in the 10's, 87% in the 20's (I have no clue what I was doing there), 8% in the 30's (Should have known after that 87% run), 25% in the 50's, 21% in the 100's. In the 50's, and 100's and now in the 200's Ive had some very streaky runs. Cashing in 7 or 8 of 10..then cashing in maybe 3 of 13 or so. Has this proven to be normal? Do the sit and goes get much more difficult above the 200's? Ive found that most of the people I play with in the 200's are the better players from the 100's, and most of them play the 300's and 500's. Should I expect my ROI in the 300's and 500's dip below 20%? Ive have yet to lose my way back into a lower limit using a 10x buy-in rule, but should I consider 20 or 30 before advancing to the 300's or 500's. Is my ROI currently on par with what is considered good, ok, bad or great? I have played exclusively sit and goes for the past year. Given the same bankroll, do you think Sit and goes or multi table tournaments are more profitable? Which has more variance?

[Irieguy]

Unfortunately, you're toast.

There's no chance you'll take this seriously, but you should play the 20's or 30's for 500-1000 SNGs with accurate stats and see what's really up.

If not... then I hope you continue to win.

Irieguy

[OneStuckFish]

Your basis for this is not enough play? ROI to low? Not enough experience at the higher levels? The ROI stats are dead on so the accuracy argument is out. You dont need a super large sample size do you, if you can tell that your level of play is on par or superior to your competition.

[stripsqueez]

10 buy ins is not even close to enough - if your beating the $100's then it wouldnt take long to get 30 buy ins before playing the $200 - that or join the many who have rushed

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Irieguy]

Your numbers look as though you haven't played enough to have any confidence in your ROI. You are clearly running very good... which isn't to say you aren't a winner... you just aren't prepared for what's about to happen.

Irieguy

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
you just aren't prepared for what's about to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something from "Zen and the Art of Poker" (not much poker in this book, but a few things to think about):

"Poker rule #29: Expect the worst - Why gamblers are pessimist.

[...] Being a pessimist becomes a positive trait in poker. It allows you to forge ahead cooly. [...] The ability to see the dark side - what can go drastically wrong - and to have this view of things always within easy reach becomes an advantage in poker."

To the original poster: I think Irie is trying to tell you you are much too optimistic with the way you're playing and thinking about the game. I think you better listen to him.

[OneStuckFish]

I didnt mean to sound like I think this is easy. I was basically confirming what I thought after entering this level...I had best prepare alot better than I needed at the limits below the $200's. I will see what goes with this 10x as usual, and if it doesnt work out...Ill back down a notch and build a larger roll. I dont see any point in not giving myself the same shot as I have through the other limits. At the first hiccup, Ill step down and prepare. I have no interest in going broke. On a side note, the $200's dont feel any tougher b/c the players are necessarily so much better than at the $100 level, its just appears to be tougher b/c everyone is at least decent. All the other limits seemed to have a defined skill level b/w the bad and good players. Agree? I wont let a run down to the lower limits break my spirits, I know at some point its going to get very tough or everyone would be playing the 500's. I appreciate the honesty. Also, I have NO poker friend that plays on the same level as I to disuss the game with. If anyone out their is also in need of someone to discuss games with each other let me know. I know this can greatly develop your game. Im dedicated to be a great player and know I could benifit from talking/discussing with someone on or above my skill level.

[Sidekick]

I will make a stab at reinforcing what a couple of posters have already said.

A bankroll of only 10 buyins is not enough for ANY limit of SnGs. Even if you are a winning player you are going to have runs where you place out of the money 12-15+ tournaments in a row. It WILL happen. It isn't a question of IF it happens, just a matter of when.

The normal recommended minimum BR is 25-30 buyins. A number of posters feel that even that really isn't enough to allow for those runs where things just really don't go your way.

All people are trying to tell you is that you have been running good. No one is saying you aren't a winning player. But whether you are a winning player or not, you are going to have runs where you lose quite a bit more than 10 buy ins.

I wish you well and hope you listen to the advice given. With only 10 buy ins you are walking along a cliff edge blind folded.

[Miamipuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I will make a stab at reinforcing what a couple of posters have already said.

A bankroll of only 10 buyins is not enough for ANY limit of SnGs. Even if you are a winning player you are going to have runs where you place out of the money 12-15+ tournaments in a row. It WILL happen. It isn't a question of IF it happens, just a matter of when.

The normal recommended minimum BR is 25-30 buyins. A number of posters feel that even that really isn't enough to allow for those runs where things just really don't go your way.

All people are trying to tell you is that you have been running good. No one is saying you aren't a winning player. But whether you are a winning player or not, you are going to have runs where you lose quite a bit more than 10 buy ins.

I wish you well and hope you listen to the advice given. With only 10 buy ins you are walking along a cliff edge blind folded.

[/ QUOTE ]


What he said. Excellent!

Fish,
I am sure my Bankroll is comparable to yours at the very least. I play in the 30's at Party Poker. I have runs where I come in 1-2 in 7 out of 10 tourny's then can not cash in the next 8. PLaying in the 200's makes no sense with only 10 Buy-ins. Play in the 50's if your ROI is good enough it will not take you long to build up and move to appropriate levels.

I have seen a noted 200 SNG player move down lately and actually play in a 30................. HHMMMMMMMM

[pshreck]

Onestuck... not to come off wrong, but players that are similar to what you are descrbing yourself as (not neccesarily you) are what make the 100+9's so profitable for many a 2+2er.

Why is this? You jump up probably way too quickly in buy ins, without a proper bankroll, and due to a certain level of skill and a ton of luck, you go up a few buy ins and think you can beat the game.

It is close to inevitable that you will lose the profit and everything else you had. What is worse, is that due to your initial success you think you can beat the game and will reload and try it a few more times (again without the right bankroll).

Moral of the story... jump back down to your correct bankroll size and beat that for a long time until you have the correct bankroll for these larger ones. If you are in fact playing these size games (200-500), your bankroll should be well above 10k... is it?

[OneStuckFish]

I understand. Perhaps its a smack to my ego to have to drop down, but ego has no place in poker. Ill do what I have to do to ensure not going broke. Ive never had to deposit in over a year, and I dont plan on doing so now. I have no doubt I can compete at this level (the 100's level appeared very soft to me) but I am coming to realize that I will need more buyins to handle the swings at these higher levels. I wouldnt consider myself to have been "running good" but I guess I havent ran too bad in order to not lose 10 buyins in a row in over a year of play. Thanks for the advice. Thanks for not assuming Im not a winning player despite the fact my bankroll skills obviously arent up to par. At least my record keeping skills are good enough to have brought to my attention something that needed to be addressed before it was too late. Im glad I came on here and asked. Thanks, Ill keep you guys updated.

[OneStuckFish]

One thing I should add. I have approximately 25 buy ins for the 200 level currently. This is b/c I never include my old buy in level in the 10x bankroll. Therefore my total bankroll would be 10 buyins at each level added together. Didnt want anyone to think I started playing the 200's with 2,000 dollars. It was at 4,500 I jumped up, which I know is not sufficient going by what you guys have said..but its not as bad as it probably sounded if you thought I was doing it on 2,000 alone.

[bugstud]

yeah, your story sounds a lot better now. HAving 20 buyins looks a lot better than 10...still not really sufficient, but a lot more plausible. You've got a healthy roll for the $100's though.

How many are you playing at once, generally?

[OneStuckFish]

Yeah, I had not even thought about the fact that I didnt include my other buy-ins..the reason is b/c if I were to lose the 10x in the 200's...I would have dropped down to the 100's with still a bank of close to 2,500 dollars. This was to ensure (hopefully) that I would never go broke. Regardless, I only play one at a time. I CANNOT multi-table, my ROI drops considerably. I still dont understand how some people can be succesful with 4-8 screens running. Pretty amazing feet at the upper levels if you ask me.

[tigerite]

I saw spyhard_spb at a $50 over the weekend. He, er, busted out in 8th.

[OneStuckFish]

Who is spyhard?

[Miamipuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is spyhard?

[/ QUOTE ]

A player that is on the leader board every month on Party Poker. He actually is almost always in the top 5 players per month. He is also the player whom I was referring to. He actually was playing in a 30+3 tourny. Why? I have no idea. If you pull his name up he is without question on 4 200+15 tables per session.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
1 year later without a single cash out yet, playing 2-3 a day or so

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe how negative people are in this thread. OSF has played a year, probably close to 1000 tournaments, and everyone says he has moved up too fast. How long are you supposed to take to move up? Ten years?

I think part of the problem is people have misread what he is doing. It sounds like he has his regular bankroll which is solid for whatever level he is at. He then sets aside 10 buy-ins from his profits for taking a shot at the next higher level. If he loses the 10 buy-ins at the next higher level he drops back down. His regular bankroll is never in jeopardy. So far he has not had to drop back down. IMO, 10 buy-ins is more than enough for taking a shot at moving up.

What a lot of people don't realize is that if you are willing to move down, that effectively double or even triples the number of buy-ins in your bankroll. In other words a player with $2180 has 20 buy-ins at the $100, but if he moves down when he hits $1100 and then again at $660, $440, $220 and then plays until he goes broke he actually has 54 buy-ins.

If you can beat a higher level (and that is obviously a big if), by not aggressively moving up you will in the long run cost yourself a lot of money. Once you are settled in at the level you want to stay at, that is the time establish a 30+ buy-in bankroll.

Paul

[OneStuckFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 year later without a single cash out yet, playing 2-3 a day or so

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe how negative people are in this thread. OSF has played a year, probably close to 1000 tournaments, and everyone says he has moved up too fast. How long are you supposed to take to move up? Ten years?

I think part of the problem is people have misread what he is doing. It sounds like he has his regular bankroll which is solid for whatever level he is at. He then sets aside 10 buy-ins from his profits for taking a shot at the next higher level. If he loses the 10 buy-ins at the next higher level he drops back down. His regular bankroll is never in jeopardy. So far he has not had to drop back down. IMO, 10 buy-ins is more than enough for taking a shot at moving up.

What a lot of people don't realize is that if you are willing to move down, that effectively double or even triples the number of buy-ins in your bankroll. In other words a player with $2180 has 20 buy-ins at the $100, but if he moves down when he hits $1100 and then again at $660, $440, $220 and then plays until he goes broke he actually has 54 buy-ins.

If you can beat a higher level (and that is obviously a big if), by not aggressively moving up you will in the long run cost yourself a lot of money. Once you are settled in at the level you want to stay at, that is the time establish a 30+ buy-in bankroll.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul, you are correct. I never include past profits in my new buy in level. I did it this way from the beginning so I could realistically see how fast I could advance through the limits. I knew I may have to move down at some point, but was willing to trade that for being able to give myself a faster shot at moving up. Currently, I have about 5,800 in my bankroll and am still playing the 200's..which i started at 4500. If I lost back down to 2300, i would drop to the 100's and so on. For me to go broke (which I know is a possibility) I would have to lose about 70+ buy ins at this point. I will continue to strive for the 300's and not change my routine..which by the way is at 7,600, but I guarantee this..if I have to drop back down, I will, and that would be a humbling, but crucial decision that must must be made in order to protect my year of hard work. I just thought of something..today is the anniversary of my bankroll..pretty cool.

[SlowStroke]

I agree, I went from the $5.50 limit to the $109 limit in less than 200 plays.

It shouldn't take that many sessions to know if the other players are better than you or worse than you at a particular limit. You don't need to see thousands of results to judge the game.

I tried the $215 limit, but dropped back to the $109. Not because of my wins or losses. I could see after only 10 plays that the players at that limit were better than I care to play against.

Now - if your bankroll is totally fixed, it may be a different story. But I'm sure most of us have other sources of income and can always add to our poker bankroll if need be.