ROI expectation moving from $55 to $109

[bball904]

Simple question really: How much ROI decrease should one expect making the move from $55 to $109? My current ROI is 25.5% over 420 $55 tournies.

[pshreck]

Considering 25.5% is probably significantly above your actualy long term ROI for 50+5s (25% ROI at this level is only really maintained in the long term by the best of the best), I would expect you to have a significant decrease.

You should realize before moving up that 420 tournaments isn't a big enough sample. I am not saying this from what I read, it comes from personal experience and playing close to 2k sngs at the same buy-in these past two months.

[Irieguy]

pshreck is right.

Irieguy

[Crosby]

My ROI over 700 $109s is around 14%. I haven't played many 55s myself, but a similarly skilled friend of mine's ROI for 55s is around the same as yours. In other words, it's probably a fair assumption that I'm making very little by playing 109s instead of 55s.

[bball904]

Thanks for the response. I'm very surprised to hear that 25% is considered elite in the 55's. I suppose I have been running very well, but I did have a stretch of -13% over 100 tournies in my sample as well. I plan to stay at 55 at least until I get 1000 tournies in. How many tournaments does it take for you to consider your ROI number fairly reliable for the long term?

[byronkincaid]

ZeeJustin says 5000.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin says 5000.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you believe that?

[The Yugoslavian]

5000 is a good starting point but I"m pretty sure someone (Aleo? or Eastbay?) figured it really was possibly 10,000+ to truly know what your long term ROI is. Does anyone wait that long to move up? I don't know of anyone who does but it's worth having at least a few thousands (rather than a few hundred).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
5000 is a good starting point but I"m pretty sure someone (Aleo? or Eastbay?) figured it really was possibly 10,000+ to truly know what your long term ROI is. Does anyone wait that long to move up? I don't know of anyone who does but it's worth having at least a few thousands (rather than a few hundred).

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really talk about sample sizes for "knowing" your ROI unless you're going to be quantitative about confidence bounds.

A "small" difference in confidence bounds might be the difference between 1k and 10k necessary sample sizes.

eastbay

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
5000 is a good starting point but I"m pretty sure someone (Aleo? or Eastbay?) figured it really was possibly 10,000+ to truly know what your long term ROI is. Does anyone wait that long to move up? I don't know of anyone who does but it's worth having at least a few thousands (rather than a few hundred).

[/ QUOTE ]

there are guys playing and winning in the $109s and $215s who probably don't have 5000 "total" SNGs played. do your really think players like strassa and ZeeJustin grinded out in the $55 to $109s for 5000 SNGs before they took the leap to the $219s? if i recall correctly, Daliman even said he started off playing around the $109s and $215s and built up his online BR from there just off prior poker knowledge. that and, most winner players don't stick around a their present level long enough to log in 5000 SNGs. does Chief911 have 5000 SNGs played at any one level? if i remember correctly, he's been playing online since the beginning of 2004 and is already winning $215s on Stars and Party and $530s on Stars.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
5000 is a good starting point but I"m pretty sure someone (Aleo? or Eastbay?) figured it really was possibly 10,000+ to truly know what your long term ROI is. Does anyone wait that long to move up? I don't know of anyone who does but it's worth having at least a few thousands (rather than a few hundred).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can never realistically know your longterm ROI within a couple percent. The only way you could know this is if you played your 5000-10000 tournaments like a robot, following a strict set of rules that never changed from tourney 1 to tourney 10000.

Nitpicky, but just something that bothers me!

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin says 5000.


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



and you believe that?


[/ QUOTE ]


Hmmmmmmm who to believe ZJ or Des. Man that's a tough one.

You still playing those $5s Des?

OK I can't decide.

The guy who's pulling in $100k + a year or the guy who's a losing $5 player.

Can anyone help me out here?

[byronkincaid]

I think a lot of us have gone a bit multitabling mad at the moment, myself included. I strongly believe that if you play 1 table at a time then 25%+ ROI is achievable but playing 4 at a time just kills that. Who's got the time to play 5000 one at a time though? Maybe we'll find out in a few years time.

[scarr]

I play $1,$5 and $10 S&Gs on UB as my primary game. I just moved up to $10 as my ROI at the $5 ROI was over 50%. I am in the hole at the $10s, but I am on my way to profit at that level.

I am nowhere near where the experts are in number of games in my sample. It almost seems like a mute point to say I only have 57 $5 S&Gs for a 61% ROI. But I never play more than one at a time and I usually play only one or two a night. At the $1 level I have 24 games and a 89% ROI.

With that said, the experts here are cranking out a nice profit multi-tabling single table S&Gs at Party. Obviously you need a good system to play multiple S&Gs at once. And, these systems seem to be holding up no matter what the level, over an extended period of time, and no matter how many they play at once. It seems to scale up nicely.

However, in another thread:

Has any other winning player been hit this hard?? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=1319058 &page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

Some have seen their profits suffer and have attributed it to a bad streak. stupidsucker (the original poster) was playing 8 at a time.

If you want to rake in the money and ride the online poker craze then the system these guys are using definately seems to work. I think they have figured out how to play the fish on a specific site which has a very aggressive blind stucture. I hate Party S&Gs and will not play Party for this reason, no matter how fishy it is.

I found when I moved to the $10 level at UB, it seemed the games were tougher at the end. Meaning, when it gets down to 5 people in the $10, I see more solid players left, making fewer mistakes. Having one or two more people at the table when the blinds are up, seems to make a big difference.

Inorder to compete at the $10 level I had to improve my game. I identified my weakness (ie. playing weak tight). I also improved my ability to identify weakness of other players. It helps when you were once weak yourself /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

If you are multi-tabling, it will be hard to determine your weakness(es) at a new level. Also, with multi-tables about the only excuse you can find for a losing streak will be a bad run of cards. There is so much more going on that I missed when I tried to play only 2 at once. Actually, based on that other thread on the bad streak, I will try to identify the multitablers at my S&Gs and use that weakness in their play to my advantage.

There is obviously a difference in attitude here. Some people are content to grind out a system and rake in the money. Myself, I enjoy the game and I am constantly trying to improve mine. Moving up in levels has forced me to play better and improved my game tremendously.

-scarr

[bball904]

I think you nailed it, eastbay. With my degree is statistics, I should have come to that myself. Confidence intervals! Of course. I think I'll still get to 1000 entries before I do any major statistical analysis, but that's a great idea and looking at Aleo's spreadsheet it clearly isn't a new idea for some of you.

One other point I find interesting is that if anyone really does play 5k or even 1k at a particular level that their game should certainly be much better at tourney 1,001 than it was game 1. I feel that there is no comparison in my game as I'm approaching 500 games then back a month ago. That's probably because I haven't played hardly at all below the 55's, so I'm likely abnormal from that perspective.

Also, the effect of multi-tabling has to be significant. I will stick to 2 tables as that's what I'm comfortable with, but I think anyone playing more than 2 or 3 have to be having some negative impact on their ROI, but maybe not their hourly rate.

Thanks for all the replies, and I hope to become more of a contributor as my plan is to stayed focused on sng's the next few months.