Playing SNG tables a good idea?

[dcoles11]

being that SNG tables are 10 or 9 people at most sites and 3rd place only pays alittlt under 2-1($50SNG pays $90 for 3rd) on your money and you are a 1-3(3 out of 9 get paid) chance of placing in the tournament, is it even a good idea to play them?

[AleoMagus]

we all seem to think so

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

I've been working on my brevity in an effort to make pooh-bah by 2006. I think I'm getting the hang of it.

Notice how I even made this second thought a new post instead of just editing or adding it to the first.

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

... But anyways

Yes, the numbers that you gave would seem to indicate that the 'average' player whose finish distribution was exactly in accordance with the odds over the long run would lose money

This is true, and is because of the fact that the site is charging a fee

Good players, however, can overcome this by finishing disproportionately in the top three spots, thereby netting themselves a profit. This is definitely possible, and many of the players on this forum have been making money at SNG poker over thousands of tourneys now.

Regards
Brad S

[niwotyalpi]

[ QUOTE ]
being that SNG tables are 10 or 9 people at most sites and 3rd place only pays alittlt under 2-1($50SNG pays $90 for 3rd) on your money and you are a 1-3(3 out of 9 get paid) chance of placing in the tournament, is it even a good idea to play them?


[/ QUOTE ]


Well with the roughly 30 % chance of placing idea, you are way off. A good sit n' go player has a much better than 30 % chance of placing in each sit n' go. I think you will find that many people on this site have ITM's at 40 % or higher. I only have relevant stats for 30/3's at Party, but for 500+ 30/3 sit n' go's my ITM was 48.2 %. And I am by no means the best sit n go player on this site.

Bottom line. YES. sit n' go's can be very profitable if you become great at them. Just ask guys like Giga, ZeeJustin, and many others on here.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been working on my brevity in an effort to make pooh-bah by 2006. I think I'm getting the hang of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Head over to Other Other Topics, that's a sure fire way to get your post count up.

Just thought I'd help you out for a change . . . and increase my count by one.

[KenProspero]

I guess if we follow the original poster's logic, we would never play in ANY raked game. Obviously, with the house taking it's slice, there is a -EV for the table as a whole.

And yet, people seem to make money at SnGs as well as at raked games. It's just a matter of finding a game where you're better than average by enough to compensate for the entry fee.

[binions]

Online SNGs are one of the most consistently beatable games in all of poker, if

A) you know how to play them (there's an art to it)
B) you have the proper bankroll

One of the reasons SNGs are profitable is the rake structure. Consider a winning 50+5 player. Single tabling, he wins $15-20 an hour, and pays $5 per hour rake.

In order to win that much per hour in an online ring game, you need to play at least $5-10, which at $3 rake x 60 hands/hour divided by 10 seats or $18/hour rake.

[AleoMagus]

Not to mention the fact that the average winning SNG player has a much smaller variance. This also implies that for the same profit, a smaller bankroll is needed.

Regards
Brad S

[KingOtter]

I've played in 74 SnG's, and my ROI currently is 41%. And I went through a really bad spell where it was down to 14%... but it was still profitable.

That's taking into account the entry fee, and the base amount.

I've not calculated my ITM yet, though. Since I was doing it on Pacific I couldn't use PT, but now I'm on Paradise playing $5+1 limit.

KO

[se2schul]

Ya, you're right. Ring games are also horrible. 10 players at a table where on average everyone wins the pot 1/10 of the time less the house rake means that everyone loses, except the house.

Why do we even play poker?

[binions]

pay 10% rake instead of 20%. No reason EVER to play a 5+1.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
pay 10% rake instead of 20%. No reason EVER to play a 5+1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really just starting this out, and the $5+1 did seem to be an expensive rake. But I've played 3, and won all 3.

Tell you the truth I've been nervious about moving up to the next higher SnG's. I think I can beat them, but scared of the variance and losing a bunch.

I also play limit ring games at .25/.50 right now.

KO

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm really just starting this out, and the $5+1 did seem to be an expensive rake. But I've played 3, and won all 3.

Tell you the truth I've been nervious about moving up to the next higher SnG's. I think I can beat them, but scared of the variance and losing a bunch.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you can beat the 5s, you can beat the 10s. You'll need about a $300 bankroll.

[citanul]

doesn't ub offere 5+.5s? i thought paradise did too?

unless you are really actually hard up for cash, there truthfully is nothing to be gained from playing the 5s, since the 10s are just as good.

citanul

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


One of the reasons SNGs are profitable is the rake structure. Consider a winning 50+5 player. Single tabling, he wins $15-20 an hour, and pays $5 per hour rake.

In order to win that much per hour in an online ring game, you need to play at least $5-10, which at $3 rake x 60 hands/hour divided by 10 seats or $18/hour rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to nit-pick, but since you calculate your hourly earn AFTER the rake, it doesn't matter to you what the rake is. It only matters what your earn is. There's no difference between paying $18/hr rake and $5/hr rake as long as you are still making $15/hr.

The compelling reason to play SNGs for $15/hr instead of ring games for $15/hr is that your variance will be much lower playing SNGs.

The PartyPoker SNG payout structure defines a standard deviation of around 2.5-3 buy-ins per SNG, whereas most winning ring game players have SDs in the neighborhood of 30BBs per 100 hands. So a 5/10 ring game player who earns 2BB/100 will have a SD of around $300/Hr, whereas the $55 SNG player will have a SD of around $150/hr.

Irieguy

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One of the reasons SNGs are profitable is the rake structure. Consider a winning 50+5 player. Single tabling, he wins $15-20 an hour, and pays $5 per hour rake.

In order to win that much per hour in an online ring game, you need to play at least $5-10, which at $3 rake x 60 hands/hour divided by 10 seats or $18/hour rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to nit-pick, but since you calculate your hourly earn AFTER the rake, it doesn't matter to you what the rake is. It only matters what your earn is. There's no difference between paying $18/hr rake and $5/hr rake as long as you are still making $15/hr.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's cheaper to make $15 per hour playing SNGs. I think that matters alot. Means you need less bankroll. And it plays into the lower variance.

Flipside, paying $18 an hour rake in SNGs ought to allow a good player to earn a lot more than the best players at the 5-10 limit ring game.

[dcoles11]

Just posing a question. I place in the money over 40% of the time as well. I would say that if 9 of you guys that say you all make money playing SNG games sat down at a table unknowingly together then you would not be getting sufficient odds since you justify playing the SNG tables because you are clearly better than atleast 6 of the other players. But I realize that will seldom if ever happen. Some of you guys remind me of the "office computer repair guy" from that Saturday Night Live skit that Jimmy Falon did, with your bad people skills, cool out Poker Nazis, it will be ok.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm really just starting this out, and the $5+1 did seem to be an expensive rake. But I've played 3, and won all 3.

Tell you the truth I've been nervious about moving up to the next higher SnG's. I think I can beat them, but scared of the variance and losing a bunch.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you can beat the 5s, you can beat the 10s. You'll need about a $300 bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm at $240 right now.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Up from $50+bonus.

I also need $300 to move up to .50/$1, too... that's $600! heh.. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

KO

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
The PartyPoker SNG payout structure defines a standard deviation of around 2.5-3 buy-ins per SNG

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct about everything except I think even these numbers are a bit high. I think that most winning SNG players will only have a SD of about 1.7 Buy-ins.

Of course this only strengthens the point that you are making.

Regards
Brad S

[Irieguy]

Correct, Aleo. I meant 1.5-2 buy-ins, but typed 2.5-3 for some reason. I then calculated the $-value SD from that number by mistake.

Thank you for the correction.

Irieguy

[ThorGoT]

Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't ub offere 5+.5s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an easy answer to this. Play 'game 1' and get a rakeback deal.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an easy answer to this. Play 'game 1' and get a rakeback deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rakeback deals apply to tournament entry fees as well. At least the one I have does.

[Irieguy]

You should still play game 1, then.

Irieguy

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that most winning SNG players will only have a SD of about 1.7 Buy-ins.


[/ QUOTE ]
I have heard you mention that several times, now. Thanks to a magificent spreadsheet I found somehere, my SD is exactly 1.7. Why is that? What's so magical about 1.7? Or is it like the Compunding Interest Rule of 72 . . . it just is.

[AleoMagus]

As Irie has mentioned in the past, the SD of poker results is determined more by the game and structure than by individual playing considerations.

It just happens that the 10 player, 3 places paid, 50% 30% 20% structure of most SNGs produces a SD roughly equal to 1.7 buy-ins.

This is actually an estimate which may be too specific. I suppose that 1.6 to 1.8 would be a bit better.

Better players will have higher SD but I'd be very surprised to see it get much higher than 1.8 buy-ins over a large sample.

Nothing magical, just the way SNG results tend to turn out.

Regards
Brad S

[viennagreen]

sitting at any table full of people of equal or better skill will not be profitable long term-- whether it is a SNG or a ring-game.

if the point that you are making is that "table selection is important", you are most certainly correct...

oh-- and you do not need to be clearly better than at least 6 players for playing an SNG to be profitable. If you were at a table and were one of 9 players of exactly equal ability, and there was 1 player who sucked *ss, then those 9 players would be break-even long term (assuming a 10% rake).

[lacky]

you need a +EV goal. Try playing more and posting less. Move half your posting hours into the playing hours column and should see a profit.

Steve

[lacky]

you overshot on you SD for ring games by about 2x. 15 to 18 BB/100 is normal depending on the game.