Are you a winning player?

[stupidsucker]

There has been some talk recently in a post about how people lie about if they are winning or not.

Does 2+2 have more winning players then average? And by how much.

Please answer honestly, no one will know who you are

[adanthar]

I'm about 50 SNG's short but it's mathematically impossible for me to be losing after 500 so I get to vote over /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[RavenJackson]

I am interested in the honest and anonymous response to this poll. So I am bumping it up a bit. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ilya]

I'm a winning player after about 1500 $10s, $20s, and $30s on Party (mostly $20s). However my ROI sucks, relatively speaking. I haven't tallied it up in a while, but I would guess it's somewhere in the low teens. I'm a slow learner, I suppose, though I've only been playing since July. I 3-table and play a lot during the day as well as at night, all days of the week. That's East Coast time.

It's too bad I can't convert 1-table satellite wins into cash...I'd have a healthy 60% ROI in those.

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's too bad I can't convert 1-table satellite wins into cash...I'd have a healthy 60% ROI in those

[/ QUOTE ]

After how many? what kind of payout struture did they use. 60% seems way high.

[B Mando]

I think there are going to be many more winning players responding to this poll because I assume most of the players who post here are active players and think about the game and have read books and such about poker...
BTW Stud8 SNGS on pokerstars are CAKE

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's too bad I can't convert 1-table satellite wins into cash...I'd have a healthy 60% ROI in those

[/ QUOTE ]

After how many? what kind of payout struture did they use. 60% seems way high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small sample, about 100. I was just being cheeky, mostly.
The payout structure varies. In the sats for the Supers it's 81/19. But in the sats for the Carib Classic satellite, for example, it's 92/8. That is, that's what the structure would be if 1st place paid cash.
The weird thing is, my ratio of 1sts in regular SnGs is not good. I have a suspicion that the satellite structure may affect my play for the better by making me play more agressively on the bubble. But it's probably just sample size or weaker competition. Or it could be that my opponents are overadjusting for the format, and playing TOO recklessly. Or the super steep payout structure is very kind to a 1sts percentage that would be low in a 50/30/20 format.

[HoldingFolding]

A real winning player would also be able to pay for the opportunity cost; you could be flipping burgers or juggling a few LBOs. So although technically a winning player, by this criteria I'm way out of the money, even as a can collector /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[bismillahno]

great excuse to combine spreadsheets and see my tally. And I passed the 500 barrier today /images/graemlins/grin.gif. Barely above minimum wage hourly, but at least its up.

[spentrent]

30% ROI with about 100 10s and 20s: my spreadsheet is mixed (I'm designing a DB). I voted "winning, but under 500." However, I don't think about 100 is enough for me to really feel like a generally "winning player." I'll feel it out at 500.

[stupidsucker]

I am getting the results I assumed I would get.

I think it is downright impossible to get the true answers. I honestly think the regular posters here that play over 500 games are much higher then average compared to the rest of the poker public.

This is especially true for the SnG world. SnGs are really so easy to master. I think anyone that reads the posts here and puts in the time to get better will be a winning player. Learning how to grind out shorthanded limit 10-20 takes a lot more skill and practice. I would lose my ass if I tried to play that game.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
This is especially true for the SnG world. SnGs are really so easy to master. I think anyone that reads the posts here and puts in the time to get better will be a winning player. Learning how to grind out shorthanded limit 10-20 takes a lot more skill and practice. I would lose my ass if I tried to play that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be the first to admit that. I'm a winning player at 3/6 but broke even over a statistically insignificant sample at 5/10 and would probably be a loser now since my limit game's a bit rusty.

Limit's just a completely different animal with a lot more variance involved. SNG's are *incredibly* easy compared to that.

[mackthefork]

Mine is about 550 sngs at 31.5% ROI and 39.5% ITM, all 5s and 10s one and two tables, about 200 on Party and 350 on Stars.

Regards Mack

[Pepsquad]

Wow, I'm a 1 in 25 representation of the forum (Losing Player under 500 SNG's). But hey, at least it confirms I'm getting advice from some damn good players. Now if 40-60% were over 500 SNG's and losing...that would be fu**ing scary. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I'm a 1 in 25 representation of the forum (Losing Player under 500 SNG's). But hey, at least it confirms I'm getting advice from some damn good players. Now if 40-60% were over 500 SNG's and losing...that would be fu**ing scary. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i think if the amount of votes was increased the winners would probably get a higher %; however thats not to say being in the minority of losing on this poll your alone compared to everyone here. we all were losers once over. and anyone can improve their SnG game to be profitable at any level imo.

what i think is important, is if you took all the people of 2+2, seperated them by game (limit, NL, PL ring games, SnGs and MTTs) and polled whether they were:
a, winners
b, winners over a significant number of hands/games

youd find that SnGs come out on top, possibly by a fair margin. the exception possibly being ring games being more profitable short term due to the huge variance.

plus we have a benefit of needing a smaller bankroll for each given limit; that is to say if you get 25% ROI on the 10s, youd need a higher bankroll on whatever ring game you play if your getting the same hourly rate. (this may not be true for NL ring, im pretty sure it is though)

personally, i chose winner, but under 500 games; although having played my first SnG 2 years ago im sure ive played 500+, just not tracked them. ive only really stepped up my seriousness since becoming a uni student; and that includes when i was a pro living solely of low limit ring games. ive no idea where my long term ROI is since then, especially since im on my 3rd site in a month and a bit so its like comparing apples and oranges.

what i am sure of is my ROI has stepped up just by joining party, the poor play has no comparisons, and outweighs stars' (for example) structure benefits.

Phill

[protoverus]

While I can answer 'over 500 and winning' my ROI bounces between 10-20% (sitting at about 14%) most of the time...

So, I am an example of someone answering 'winning' but obviously still have a long way to go to be a good player.

These boards have been invaluable in getting my game to where it is right now.

[Sponger15SB]

Stupid .... how many players on party poker have played 500 SNGs and are not broke and still keep playing.

My guess is slim to none.

How long do you think it takes for the avg. recreational player to play 500 SNGs? A year? 6 months?

I've done almost 600 in 3 weeks /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[stupidsucker]

All things being equal every player should have a -9% roi after the rake.

Most players here claim to have an average of about 20% roi. LoL are there any winning players outside of 2+2?

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Stupid .... how many players on party poker have played 500 SNGs and are not broke and still keep playing.

My guess is slim to none.

How long do you think it takes for the avg. recreational player to play 500 SNGs? A year? 6 months?

I've done almost 600 in 3 weeks /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet a lot of players lose and keep playing. The SnGs give the illusion that they are good, and they just keep getting unlucky more then almost any other poker variation. A lot of fish probably dont have much less then a -15% roi. That is a lot of bang for your buck if you are going to lose, and it wouldnt be all that uncommon for them to have runs of 100 SnGs as a winning player. If they start out with that run of 100 as winning then they may be stuck playing for another 600 before they realize they cant win. Then it is of course because party is rigged.

This is another reason why I think SnGs will flourish for a longer time to come. There are a lot of people that honestly dont care if they lose money. Even if they have a -25% roi then they only lose less then $3/11sng. That is a pretty good value for entertainment for an hour. Less then going out to see a movie.

You change your avatar ever damn day lol.(btw I have played 548 so far this month, the most I have ever played ina month)

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of fish probably dont have much less then a -15% roi.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see 2 main types of player who basically are incapable of making the money ever unless some kind of miracle should happen, firstly theres the ones who never raise or raise properly, they get aces cracked by crap and can't work out why, second theres the lags who raise too much and with poor holdings and go too far with them. Extreme cases in either direction are basically dead money, to get -15% I think you need some kind of game in you, these guys don't have any.

Regards Mack

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
theres the ones who never raise or raise properly, they get aces cracked by crap and can't work out why

[/ QUOTE ]

These people are dangerous, sure they get their aces and kings cracked wen they slowplay it preflop and flop, but it also gives them action, and when they do win with aces they win pretty big. These players also play fairly tight for the most part, and see a lot more bubbles, but once they get there they are not aggressive enough.

[ QUOTE ]
theres the lags who raise too much and with poor holdings and go too far with them

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of player is very dangerous as well, because although they are playing moronic in the begining , once they hit the bubble they arent too far off from being correct. They also accumulate large stacks, and take a lot of 1sts to make up for the early exits they take. These people enojy the gamble, and are obviously not there to make money.

Being a winning SnG player is very dependent on knowing when and how to change gears. Both these types of dangerous players are sort of in the right gear for at least half the time. Luck is a huge factor in SnGs. When they push that Q4s hard its not exactly dominated by AK. When they slow those aces they bust out sometimes, but they also catch a lot of people with their pants down that pick up top pair.

I dont have anyway to prove my statement about a -15% roi, but for most of the chum it cant be too far off.

[stupidsucker]

Doing a fast crude calculation I think I proved myself close to correct. It all depends on how many "winning" players are at the "average" table, and what their roi is.

If there are 3 winning players at a table? )I think the average is more like 1.5) And lets say between the winning players they have an average roi of 20%(I think this number is high)

So each winning player is worth about $13/$100 prize pool(at an $11)
This leaves $61 for the remaining 7 players giving them all an average of -20.8% roi.

If you use 1.5 winning players at an average of 25% roi then the average remaining losing players have an roi of -15.1%

If you use just yourself at a table.(the only known stat)
At the 30s my roi is almost exactly 25%. That means the remaining 9 players have an average roi of -12.89%


I guess what it really comes down to is how many people are winning players and how many of them are losing players. Most people I play against dont even know what roi means, and this is at the 30+3 level.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

theres the ones who never raise or raise properly, they get aces cracked by crap and can't work out why


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



These people are dangerous, sure they get their aces and kings cracked wen they slowplay it preflop and flop, but it also gives them action, and when they do win with aces they win pretty big. These players also play fairly tight for the most part, and see a lot more bubbles, but once they get there they are not aggressive enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay these guys are irritating for a TAG to play against but basically they are playing wrong, and once you've seen his method you can smell it a mile off, also I often come across the loose passive version of this guy.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

theres the lags who raise too much and with poor holdings and go too far with them


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This kind of player is very dangerous as well, because although they are playing moronic in the begining , once they hit the bubble they arent too far off from being correct. They also accumulate large stacks, and take a lot of 1sts to make up for the early exits they take. These people enojy the gamble, and are obviously not there to make money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I feed off these guys mid stage and early, and yes okay it's irritating when they start playing accidentally correct around bubble time, but again I have seen plenty of these types who get tighter around the bubble, which just makes me wonder what asylum they are on day release from.

The worst situation you can be in, more or less in my opinion anyways, is when you have a tight passive with 50% of the chips and you with 2 others about the same stack size, including a complete maniac, many times I have come close to my head exploding as I have to try outcrazying the maniac as the tight guy folds everything. So okay these guys present their own unique problems to us, but they are a sight better to have around than a technically correct player who adjusts to table conditions and blind levels, agreed?

Regards Mack

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
but they are a sight better to have around than a technically correct player who adjusts to table conditions and blind levels, agreed?



[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutly.

These players are no doubt -RoI players for sure. I would rather play against anyone with even a slight -roi opposed to someone with a simalar winning play style like my own.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing a fast crude calculation I think I proved myself close to correct. It all depends on how many "winning" players are at the "average" table, and what their roi is.

If there are 3 winning players at a table? )I think the average is more like 1.5) And lets say between the winning players they have an average roi of 20%(I think this number is high)

So each winning player is worth about $13/$100 prize pool(at an $11)
This leaves $61 for the remaining 7 players giving them all an average of -20.8% roi.

If you use 1.5 winning players at an average of 25% roi then the average remaining losing players have an roi of -15.1%

If you use just yourself at a table.(the only known stat)
At the 30s my roi is almost exactly 25%. That means the remaining 9 players have an average roi of -12.89%


I guess what it really comes down to is how many people are winning players and how many of them are losing players. Most people I play against dont even know what roi means, and this is at the 30+3 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a link posted here yesterday in which someone analyzed each play style (TAG->LAG->LP->TP) and its ROI at the .50/1-5/10 levels. Most of those styles wind up in the +2/-2 BB/hour range with two exceptions: the LAG's and the loose passives. The LAG's were at -5 and the loose passives were -9 BB/hour.

Essentially, what this means is that the maniacs and the true calling stations (not just the people that go too far with top pair, but the ones that call down big bets on every street with bottom pair) are just so much dead money even when you account for the LAG's being closer to correct in an SNG. Put one of each in a $10, and the eight remaining players are splitting $95.

I would suspect that what you really need to do is subtract the 1-2 best players *and* the 1-2 worst players from the pool of 10; the remaining 6 will probably be break-even or close, not including rake.

[spentrent]

Since you replied to my post I'll assume you're addressing me? I too am finding the small buy-in SNGs pretty damn easy to beat, but I can't rely on 100 games to make it a set-in-stone fact. But I can say that I see SO MANY mistakes; for instance, I've seen someone call an all-in (re)raise with TPTK in what feels like EVERY game I've played. Even if I kept no stats at all, I'd consider that kind of game entirely beatable.

I play 4 tables. I'm hoping to be able to sustain a 20-25% ROI on the 50s. Should the 50s be as easy to beat as the 20s?

I really can't find a reason why the 50s players should be any more advanced than the 20s players. Plenty of folks are just bankrolled for it -- not climbing the poker bankroll tree as it were. But then again we'll see what happens when I've got 25 buy-ins; maybe I'll be singing a different tune. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
what i am sure of is my ROI has stepped up just by joining party, the poor play has no comparisons, and outweighs stars' (for example) structure benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THIS is the kind of info I'm looking for. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I moved to Stars when I started playing "more seriously" due to the (quite possibly imagined) structure benefits.

However, I've since heard other players report that they see a similar ROI at Party and Stars BUT they have a better houly rate as the Party games end faster. But you've got a better ROI... huh.....

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
While I can answer 'over 500 and winning' my ROI bounces between 10-20% (sitting at about 14%) most of the time...

[/ QUOTE ]

What buy-ins are you playing?

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal every player should have a -9% roi after the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things aren't equal. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I feed off these guys mid stage and early, and yes okay it's irritating when they start playing accidentally correct around bubble time, but again I have seen plenty of these types who get tighter around the bubble, which just makes me wonder what asylum they are on day release from.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how played when I first started: "Cool there are tournaments online like the ones on the teevee!"

So naturally I played very loose-aggressive (not that I knew that you called it that /images/graemlins/wink.gif)... and, since it didn't get me ITM that much, when I DID get on the bubble, I tightened up for fear of losing that elusive chance to ACTUALLY profit. It makes sense IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

I don't think it's that crazy; in fact, I find it very common (on the 10s and 20s at least). Now I prey on these guys.

[KJ o]

[ QUOTE ]
Most players here claim to have an average of about 20% roi. LoL are there any winning players outside of 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be too surprised if a large majority of the winning SnG players are in fact at least lurkers at 2+2. This is the biggest and best serious poker community, and it's not hard to find.

[MrMon]

Here are some actual stats worth contemplating. All these games are at Paradise, so the community is considerably smaller than someplace like Party.

I have played since last December, but only have records from Feb 1. I am probably missing 100 or so SnGs, but I do have records on 590. So that mean I have probably played 700 no-limit SnGs in 10 months, or about 70 per month. I've played $5, $10, $20, and $30, and now mostly play $20. Total ROI for all available data is ~15%, though I'm pretty consistantly at 30% in the $20 game. I don't multiplayer, as Paradise doesn't allow it.

Given all that, in 590 games I have played 4,359 different people over 10 months. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif In all that time, I've played no one more that 8x (1 person), 4 people 5x, and 14 people 4x - the vast majority (90%+) I've seen once or twice, often within a few days of each other.

Considering that 9 x 590 = 5,310, which is that maximum number of unique players, and I've played 4,359, I'd say the average person playing online at the lower limits is online for a very short period of time, loses, then leaves. It's either that or get better. Anyone who stays becomes a winning player.

It might be an unwritten rule that if you see someone over a long period of time that you don't know is horrible, just move on, you'll have better luck with the unknown fishes. Easiest stat in the world to keep is who you played when, and how did they finish.

[lacky]

Just making sure you know this. After you win a seat in the tourney, all additional wins pay cash. So you actually can play them as cash games after the first win. Thats how it was a few months ago anyway.

Steve

edit-sorry, forgot I was reading old posts!

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Just making sure you know this. After you win a seat in the tourney, all additional wins pay cash. So you actually can play them as cash games after the first win. Thats how it was a few months ago anyway.

Steve

edit-sorry, forgot I was reading old posts!

[/ QUOTE ]]

Actually I didn't realize that. Thanks!

[(my name it is) Sam Hall]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be too surprised if a large majority of the winning SnG players are in fact at least lurkers at 2+2. This is the biggest and best serious poker community, and it's not hard to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be too surprised if anyone who has the dedication to the game to lurk on 2+2 for a while can become a winning player.

I have to vote write-in here since "I dont have over 500 SnGs and I am a winning player (so far)" isn't on there. Even though I think I am a winning S&G player based on lots of experience playing cards, a fair amount of experience gambling and not losing big, and a decent understanding of how other people think, I won't state it without the proper qualification until I see statistically significant proof. Holdem is a different game than bridge or gin rummy and I shouldn't think I can play well right away any more than Michael Jordan could play baseball. My ROI is green on the PT screen right now. It doesn't mean anything yet, but I think it's worth a little more than a simple "I don't know." Anyone with me one this?

Sam