What % of players who move up to 100 and 200 SNGs falsely do so?

[pshreck]

Hey folks. This is a question that I think needs to be answered, for no other reason than to satisfy me.

How many of you are really beating these high level SNGs? I believe that there are a good number of you who have beat them for a period... but how many have actuallly beaten them for more than 750 tournaments. I have learned over the past few weeks that 500 tournaments isnt really enough to say much about your ROI. If you are 40% ROI through 500, then there is about a 99% chance you are a winning player, but your true long therm ROI could be less than half of that.

So I see tons of "no names" on this board who say they are beating the 100 and 200 buy ins for anywhere between 5 and 20% ROI. I want to know how many tournaments you have actually played at this level? I speculate that a lot of you have played around 100-200. I also speculate that for every 1 of you, there are about 10 others that went about 0% or slightly less for 200, but they are the same skill level as you, just didnt have as good a run.


My theory is that the 100 and 200 sngs are beatable, but really for only an elite class of player. I think there are about 15% of players that are losing a TON on these, about 80% (or higher) that are between -5% ROI and 1 or 2% ROI, and maybe 5% that are sustaining some semblance of profit over time. I don't think all these regular joes that come and post their ROIs at these levels really have much chance of doing it in the long run.

Being a succesful 20+2er, and being humble enough, I dont see why I should be able to beat a level like 200+15 with even 2 years of poker experience, unless I am really something special. Therefore I have no intention of moving up with even the next 12 months. Why do so many players think they can beat such a high level?

Id like to see the long term succesful players comment on this... you and most of the board know who you are. Of course, Id like to see what everyone else has to say too.

[Jman28]

Great post. I'm curious too.

[MaGi]

You have to realize that this forum is not a random sampling of poker players. There are, of course, plenty of losing players, but this forum is full of avid poker players who want to learn and improve their game.

Bottom line, poker players who post here are going to be better than the average poker player.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to realize that this forum is not a random sampling of poker players. There are, of course, plenty of losing players, but this forum is full of avid poker players who want to learn and improve their game.

Bottom line, poker players who post here are going to be better than the average poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the biggest misconception on 2+2. You post on this board if you ever bought a Sklansky book and saw the website on it. I think 2+2 is an average make-up of poker players, with the luckier short term players more likely to be posting their results.

[Chief911]

You also probably will not find many $200 players willing to post their exact stats. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

I wish I had 700+ SNG's at that level to talk about, but I dont. That said I've established a pretty good start playing the $200's on Empire/Party and the $500's on Pokerstars. But longevity is where its at.

Nick

[Sponger15SB]

This whole post is entirely too hilarious. You sound like you have a serious case of jealousy for people who play poker better than you.

[pshreck]

I actual thought I was commenting on something pertinent to this board. I'll freely admit I can't beat the 100+9 or 200+15, or atleast I have no evidence I can do so.

Does this post really sounds like I am jealous and or angry? Sorry if it does.

[Desdia72]

you tried 'em, pshrek! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adanthar]

Six months ago, this forum was full of players that were beating the $10 and $20 SNG's with the occasional $30 guy. $200 posters were very rare, maybe limited to a handful of people.

Right now, all of those exact same people are beating the 30's and 50's for close to the same ROI they had before and half the guys beating the 50's are now posting about 200's.

Give it some time.

[Jason Strasser]

I played 400 or so 200 SNGs over the summer with a ROI in the mid, single digits (it got that way after a pretty brutal run over my last 100). Then I took a break when school started and decided to work my way up the SNG ladder once I decided to play again. I played 60 or so 30 sngs with an ROI just below 30%. Then I moved quickly to the 200s and I wont even let you know my ROI figure for my first 150 SNGs because it is not sustainable.

-Jason

P.S. I am extremely confident I am a winning 200 player at peak hours. When its morning or afternoon and there are less fish around, I am still confident I am a winning player, but definitely not as winning (duh).

[hhboy77]

the comment about the average 2+2'er not being an above average player is flat-out wrong. it's justified by saying that anyone who's bought a sklansky book is on 2+2 might be true, but anyone who's bought a sklansky book and taken the time to look on 2+2 is way above average.

think about all the people who have decided to play after watching the wpt or wsop.

[Hydro]

[ QUOTE ]
the comment about the average 2+2'er not being an above average player is flat-out wrong. it's justified by saying that anyone who's bought a sklansky book is on 2+2 might be true, but anyone who's bought a sklansky book and taken the time to look on 2+2 is way above average.

think about all the people who have decided to play after watching the wpt or wsop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agree. Someone who just plays poker for fun or once a is not the average guy we have on the forums. Someone who takes poker just above average would be on this forum. I mean he put the effort into reading some poker tips didnt he?

And for the person who reads a book, well that person is also prob better then the average joe who plays poker 1-2 a week

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
the comment about the average 2+2'er not being an above average player is flat-out wrong. it's justified by saying that anyone who's bought a sklansky book is on 2+2 might be true, but anyone who's bought a sklansky book and taken the time to look on 2+2 is way above average.

think about all the people who have decided to play after watching the wpt or wsop.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know it's flat out wrong? You are automatically corresponding having a deeper interest in poker with being more succesful at it. There are a lot of addictive gamblers that have a great interest at poker and aren't good at all, and Im sure there are plenty of them who post at this site. Tons of posts come from people with short term success, which can happen to literally any poker player out there, regardless of skill.

There are posters on this site who I think are flat out geniuses at the way they look at poker, and there are posters who I think offer very bad advice on a consistent basis. There are a ton in between, who tend to post when they do well and not to post when they aren't doing well. I think 2+2 is a close representation of the larger poker population.

However I won't say you are 'flat out wrong' because I don't have hard evidence.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to realize that this forum is not a random sampling of poker players. There are, of course, plenty of losing players, but this forum is full of avid poker players who want to learn and improve their game.

Bottom line, poker players who post here are going to be better than the average poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the biggest misconception on 2+2. You post on this board if you ever bought a Sklansky book and saw the website on it. I think 2+2 is an average make-up of poker players, with the luckier short term players more likely to be posting their results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt if the "average" poker player ever buys a 2+2 book. Therefore, those that post here are above average.

[dogsballs]

there's usually a very strong correlation between people being very keen on something and being good at it - or better than the average.

Nothing's set in stone, but I'm pretty sure the average 2+2'er is far ahead of the guy who's maybe watched the big shots on TV and decided to put a few hunnerd in his online poker account to emulate that

[Bremen]

A couple thoughts on why we don't see ROI figures for 500+ tourneys.

1. Most people burn out long before reaching that mark. I'm currently at 325 logged SNG's. I don't really know how I manage to keep playing some days. It just isn't fun to be a winning player, and really most people make more at their regular job (unless you're beating the higher lvl SNG's)

2. New players are alot more likely to post their stats. They want to know how they're doing, or more likely boast about their unsustainable rates (I once said I could make 3BB/hr playing 2/4 in a B&M lol).

3. Experienced players are less likely to post their stats as they are the same stats they had last week (no use posting the same ROI every week :0). There are fewer long term winners as well (due to burnout issues in #1). Also many may feel its not polite to brag/ gives others a distorted view of how easy SNG's are.

[dogsballs]

This is an interesting post and I'll be watching to see what others have to say. I'm not too happy with my current 11% at 105+9's, but maybe I should be.

[J.A.Sucker]

People can beat the tournaments, but few can make what they say. This isn't to say that one can't do very well in the bigger SNGs. I maintain that I could teach someone to beat the big SNGs with no poker experience within a matter of weeks. The skills required to do so aren't that tough, IMO.