Statzzzzzzzzzzz

[byronkincaid]

I've just spent most of the afternoon adding all this up. I've got to get poker tracker asap.

Results of my 1st 1000 $55 Party Poker sngs

1st 129
2nd 133
3rd 113
4th 121
5th 152
6th 102
7th 96
8th 65
9th 56
10th 33

ROI 15.45%
ITM 37.5%

I'm obviously disappointed, I thought I was a 20% player. I last checked my ROI at 500 sngs and it was 19%.

Excuses, the vast majority of these games have been played during the day (GMT) which means usually between 10-25k people on Party. The games are obviously softer when there are 60k. Also I started 4 tabling about 300 games ago and I'm still getting used to it. I really feel the pressure when I have 2-3 games on the bubble/heads up but this is something I'll get used to in time hopefully.

So, as my teachers at school always used to say, room for improvement. I can comfortably play 150 sngs a week now so even at 10% ROI I'm not going to starve but I really want to get up to 20% plus to take advantage of the poker boom while it lasts.

Any comments welcome

[AleoMagus]

I do not think a 15% ROI looks that bad here.

Part of the reason we see so many 30%+ ROI claims over smaller samples is just that it is so much easier to do if you are putting in less than 10 SNGs per week.

When I was getting my best results ever over a reasonable sample, I was playing one or two SNGs a day, individually, with breaks in between and a lot of study and relaxation. I never played if I did not feel 100% about poker and if I thought watching TV or reading a book was going to be more enjoyable, that's what I did.

Then when I started playing massive amounts of SNGs, my results fell. This seemed strange at first because I thought I would be more focused and my game would improve, but I came to realize that is a silly way of looking at it. At least for me.

There is no way most people can maintain the same intensity playing 150 SNGs a week as they do playing 10 each week. Adding to this the fact that you are multi-tabling, playing in an unfortunate time block, and that you are not exactly playing the low stakes, 15% sounds pretty good.

If you can get 150 SNGs/week in about 30 hours of play, plus an extra 10 hrs/week of study and reading, then this measn that you are getting somewhere in the neighborhood of $25+/hr. That's not bad considering you are playing Poker.

Don't get me wrong, there is always room for improvement, and I think under your current circumstances 20% may even be possible, but I wouldn't beat yourself up about it either. I think a worthwhile short term goal is to manage to pull your multi-tabling ROI to 15% because it is obviously less now, considering the drop in profits over your last 500 SNGs.

The way I see it, with your current rate of earning, it should not be long before you have moved beyond the $55 level, provided your ROI does not drop too much along the way. This is easier said than done, I know. If I understand your current situation, you cannot exactly let the Bankroll grow and grow without removing some occasionally.

Still, I would be VERY surprised if we see a 2000 SNG update from you at the $55 level.

Who knows, maybe I just like to justify my ever decreasing ROI to myself, but I really think the days of the 40%+ ROI playing $55 are over (if they ever really existed). Multitabling the $55 and getting 15% sounds good to me and I wish that I could do it because every indication thus far is that I can't. Maybe that means I suck or don't play dynamically enough, but I still feel better than almost every player at every table I sit down at. I'm sure that you do too. That doesn't mean destroying the players at that level is as easy as it seems at $11-$33. They are bad, but good enough to limit your profits.

Anyways, I am rambling on again, and I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of other $55 players who put in massive amounts of games (100+/week) as to what is really possible under those circumstances.

Oh, and I'm also intersted to hear if you have taken many stabs at $109 and $215 yet?

Regards
Brad S

[Irieguy]

Well, I've played 400 $55 SNGs and my ROI is 19%. I agree with Aleo on just about everything he said, and would go so far as to say that 25%+ ROI at that level is not sustainable. I've explained this before, but it bears repeating I think:

When players move up to the levels where they get 1000 starting chips, they accidentally play better. They aren't used to having that many chips, so it takes them longer to get desperate. They play tighter for longer... which is correct. At the lower limits, a player can lose a hand and be down to 595 chips early. They get desperate/nervous and decide to just call all-in with Q-9s in level 1. At the higher limits, the same player can lose a hand early and still have 800 chips... which he's used to starting with. So he doesn't get desperate and therefore plays better. This is why the $55's are harder to beat than the $33's... more so than because of any increase in skill level.

So, yeah, I think Byron is doing fine, and probably can't expect to do a whole lot better. Also, the jump to the 109's tends to happen as soon as feasibly possible for most. The good news is that I really don't think the ROI drop is very big when you go to the $109's. At least nothing like the jump from the 33's to the 55's.

The whole trick to this gig is keeping your head straight and your bankroll viable when you go through 100-200 SNGs as a loser. Playing the right way is the easy part.

Irieguy

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

So, yeah, I think Byron is doing fine, and probably can't expect to do a whole lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, then it doesn't seem to make financial sense to move up to the $55s from the $33s. A 25% ROI at the $33s gives the same exact $ return/tournament as a 15% ROI at the $55s, with less variance. And I think a 25% ROI at the $33s may well be sustainable.

[Irieguy]

I agree. The point of moving up is to keep moving to the $109's, where a 15% ROI is quite a bit better than a 25% ROI at the 33's

Irieguy

[hurlyburly]

I have some goofy questions that this thread brings up:

Is variance reduced at $55s vs $33s?

Is it the cap on earnings playing the $33s that moves you to $55s, or the promise of higher earnings, or is this just a step to the $109s?

Does time or number of tournaments factor in at all when making the jump to $55+ levels? Where does hourly rate fit in when considering making the jump, if at all?

Is 25%+ ROI sustainable at $33? Some quick math shows that 1000 x $33 x 25% = 1000 x $55 x 15%, which makes me wonder why the jump to $55 is worth the dip.

Has anyone ever tried making the jump to $109s straight from the $33s?

Do you ever hit the $33s for some quick bankroll building?

I think it should seem obvious to me that moving up limits = higher profits, but this thread makes me wonder. Obviously the ROI% is incredibly high at the $11 but you can't make enough to pay rent.

With the structure change making the games tougher, it seems like the more logical jump would be from $33-$109 after reaching the bankroll requirements (since a 15% ROI at that level is nearly double a 25% ROI at $33). Irie seemed to hint at this as well.

[hurlyburly]

Heh, I just spent 15 minutes trying to ask the same question. Thx for the quick answer.

[byronkincaid]

Hi Brad

Thanks for taking the time out to reply.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I'm also intersted to hear if you have taken many stabs at $109 and $215 yet?


[/ QUOTE ]

$109s played 14 ROI 50.72%
$215s played 19 ROI 7.7%

[ QUOTE ]
I would be VERY surprised if we see a 2000 SNG update from you at the $55 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm nervous of the $109s from what some other posters have said here about dramatic drops in ROI and also the increased varience. I'm playing off a $5k roll (with emergency back up money in bank) and I need to take a minimum $3k a month out. I think I'd want a 10k roll before I take a serious stab at them. The extra rake back is a factor but ideally I want to save that up and take the GF on a nice holiday next year. It seems mad to think that you can make in excess of $3k a month off a $5k roll but that's what's so great about sngs.

[ QUOTE ]
think a worthwhile short term goal is to manage to pull your multi-tabling ROI to 15% because it is obviously less now,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah thats a good point, I may take your advice from another post and play 4 per hour not 5ish. Put an extra hour and a half on my day but it maybe worth it to keep the ROI up.

[ QUOTE ]
I really think the days of the 40%+ ROI playing $55 are over

[/ QUOTE ]

They're a lot better known now, I'm playing the same people over and over, the sharks are starting to take an interest. Unfortunately sng basic strategy is fairly simple, anyone who reads this forum for a while knows it's good to be tight early on and a maniac at the end. I've tried loosening up early on because I felt I was getting weak tight instead of good tight but I had very limited success.

On a side note I saw a brief mention on RGP that Lee Jones is writing a book on sngs. I wasn't too impressed with his sng articles so hopefully it will increase the fish count.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish that I could do it because every indication thus far is that I can't

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no way in the world that I'm a better player than you. I hope these posts are a small inspiration to people in low paid dead end jobs cos if I can do it (which I obviously won't know for some time) then any old dumb ass can.

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it the cap on earnings playing the $33s that moves you to $55s, or the promise of higher earnings, or is this just a step to the $109s?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the $33s because of the low amount of starting chips. I built up my roll in the stars $25 turbos and I will happily go back and play them if I am forced to.

When I left work I just had a small moniter with overlap on 2 tables. My plan was to play 100 a week which even at 20% ROI (I was on 40% at that time) would pay me more than I was getting at work. It's a great help that there are no gambling taxes in this country. When I started getting rake back it seemed to make sense to get the 1600/1200 dell and also you get greedy, I would love to be playing 200 a week. I think I saw a post from strip saying he plays 250 a week. For me this is a possible source of serious money. If you're doing a better paid job than I was and have to pay tax on winnings then it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Thing about the 109s is the varience. I have had quite a few -$500 days at the 55s. It'd be double that for the 109s............

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've played 400 $55 SNGs and my ROI is 19%. I agree with Aleo on just about everything he said, and would go so far as to say that 25%+ ROI at that level is not sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I'm lifetime 26%, and that includes each and every game I've played at $55, including learning periods, etc.

My last 500 or so I am closer to 35%.

eastbay

[Irieguy]

Are you 4-tabling? Because Byron is 4 tabling, and I was playing at least 4 tables in my set of 400, that's what I was referring to. I would agree that you can do better than 25% if you are playing 1-2 tables.

Irieguy

[ilya]

How much of your ROI would you attribute to game selection (incl. choosing what time of day/day of week to play as well as watching out for strong players)?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
How much of your ROI would you attribute to game selection (incl. choosing what time of day/day of week to play as well as watching out for strong players)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: strong players, the answer is easy: zero, or at most, negligible. There are two or three players that I see often enough that I might skip a SnG if I see them, but that's very, very rare. Maybe once a week.

As for time of day... hmm. Good question. I don't know the answer because my playing times have been fairly consistent throughout my poker history. I play US west coast evenings, anywhere from between 6 pm and 1 or 2 am. I think that's pretty good "game selection", as far as catching the overpaid, undereducated US populace at their drunken heights. /images/graemlins/wink.gif (Hey, I'm an American, too. It's just the truth.)

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you 4-tabling? Because Byron is 4 tabling, and I was playing at least 4 tables in my set of 400, that's what I was referring to. I would agree that you can do better than 25% if you are playing 1-2 tables.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. Most of that is 2 or 3-tabling. Lately I have been 4-tabling. Jury is still out.

eastbay

[ilya]

.

[WarDekar]

What country do you live in that doesn't have gambling taxes?

[byronkincaid]

england

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've played 400 $55 SNGs and my ROI is 19%. I agree with Aleo on just about everything he said, and would go so far as to say that 25%+ ROI at that level is not sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I'm lifetime 26%, and that includes each and every game I've played at $55, including learning periods, etc.

My last 500 or so I am closer to 35%.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers that I have seen posted lately are telling me that I need to take a seriously look at the way I am playing. My ROI is 20% over about 500 $22 SNGs. I always play four tables and I play a lot during the non-peak hours (east coast weekdays including mornings). I guess I need to pick better times to play and figure out some leaks.

-d1sterbd

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much of your ROI would you attribute to game selection (incl. choosing what time of day/day of week to play as well as watching out for strong players)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: strong players, the answer is easy: zero, or at most, negligible. There are two or three players that I see often enough that I might skip a SnG if I see them, but that's very, very rare. Maybe once a week.

As for time of day... hmm. Good question. I don't know the answer because my playing times have been fairly consistent throughout my poker history. I play US west coast evenings, anywhere from between 6 pm and 1 or 2 am. I think that's pretty good "game selection", as far as catching the overpaid, undereducated US populace at their drunken heights. /images/graemlins/wink.gif (Hey, I'm an American, too. It's just the truth.)

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that table selection at 55's is not a very significant variable. There are still too many players at that level to make much of an effort at table selection.

I think the fact that you play only prime hours probably has a much bigger impact in being able to maintain a high ROI than the difference in 2 tabling or 4 tabling. I just passed 1500 55's and my stats show 24.5% ROI in 336 in your time window and 15.3% ROI over 1166 at other times. My total is 17.4% over 1502. Granted, my sample over the prime time window is too small to conclude anything, but I find the difference to be quite significant. Perhaps Irie's assertion that 25%+ ROI is not sustainable may be true for the full time player grinding it out with the other full-timers during the day.

I know I started 4 tabling on Jan 21 when my 20" LCD arrived. I am actually better 4 tabling than I was 2 tabling with overlap. 18.7% over 578 4 tabling and 16.5% over 924 2 tabling. Again, the samples are too small, but I find them interesting. I personally do not believe 4 tabling will have any negative impact on my ROI long term. For me personally, I find 4 tabling also keeps me emotionally centered. It is much easier to shake off bad beats and prevent a negative mindset.

I will give a 2000 55's update as I've decided not to move up as yet.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm nervous of the $109s from what some other posters have said here about dramatic drops in ROI and also the increased varience. I'm playing off a $5k roll (with emergency back up money in bank) and I need to take a minimum $3k a month out. I think I'd want a 10k roll before I take a serious stab at them. The extra rake back is a factor but ideally I want to save that up and take the GF on a nice holiday next year. It seems mad to think that you can make in excess of $3k a month off a $5k roll but that's what's so great about sngs.


[/ QUOTE ]

If $5,000 is all you have and you are living off it I would stick with the $50+5s, seriously maximising income should not be your main objective here. Just my opinion take it as you will. I bought one of those Dell 20" monitors as well, they are the dogs.

Good luck man.

Mack

[byronkincaid]

This is an old thread, I blew my roll at the EPT in Deauville. I'm not sure that Devilfish needed it more than me but I hope he spends it wisely.

I had the great idea so I thought before Deauville, of 8 tabling the $20s. Now I'm stuck playing them for a while I hate it and I'm having trouble playing 8 at a time. Lovely having 2 Dells though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an old thread, I blew my roll at the EPT in Deauville. I'm not sure that Devilfish needed it more than me but I hope he spends it wisely.

I had the great idea so I thought before Deauville, of 8 tabling the $20s. Now I'm stuck playing them for a while I hate it and I'm having trouble playing 8 at a time. Lovely having 2 Dells though

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] I guess if thats the case you probably need to play 8 just to stand any kind of chance of moving up, please tell me you didn't have to go back to work (ugh), oh well i hope you recover soon, you really need to be cracking out 50s to maintain any sort of standard of living, and if thats not a joke (Devilfish), I can teach you something about table selection /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

8 sounds pretty [censored] up though, but those dells are the [censored] dogs.

Good luck and regards Mack

[raptor517]

i think that game selection is much more important than most people realize. if you find the people that let you steal their blinds and only defend with AA, KK, and QQ, then you have free money almost every round. if you find the people that DONT steal the blinds unless they have a strong hand, AQ or better, then you get a free ride if you dont have an opportunity to steal. this can make a big difference, so dont underestimate it.