PDA

View Full Version : $20 SnG's


vindikation
01-11-2005, 10:36 PM
I just increased my bankroll to manage handling the $20 SnG's ($630). I had a real phobia jumping up from the $5's to the $10 and crashed the first time I did (lost 5 straight). I then settled down, got over the initial "shock" and have done quite well the past 2 months playing the $10's.

After 2 months and around 100 $10's SnG's I have a 45% RIO & 45% ITM. I know this is a small sample size, but I only play for fun and don't have the time to play a lot of games.

There is a lot of talk about the $10, $50 & $200 SnG's, but not too much about the $20's. Any thoughts from people that have recently moved up from $10 to $20?

I found these 2 threads from the FAQ, but was curious if anyone had any new input on the subject, thanks:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=497773&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=659875&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1

syka16
01-11-2005, 10:51 PM
I had similar stats on 11s and was pretty lucky through my first 100 22s - ROI 39%. I'm still 2tabling 22s and am at 28% through 500. 22s still have very weak players and are beatable with basic ABC. There are some tighter players so try an occasional steal.

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 02:59 AM
I play almost exclusively 10s and 20s, about 30 a week total. My ROI is about 20% on 10s, but its a whopping 42% on 20s. This is with about 400 total tourneys in my poker tracker. I find 20s are the perfect blend of inexperienced players but experienced enough not to be total wackos and end up taking you out. On 10s solid betting and raises are rarely respected, and that makes it tough for me. 20s are better in that aspect. Of the 30s and 50s I have played, it seemed like 30s were much tougher.. I have played some true maniacs on 50s. Good luck with things.

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 03:04 AM
There are frequent questions about how big a difference there is between level "x" and level "y."

Every once in a while there will even be a post stating the opinion that a higher buy-in is easier than a lower buy-in. The only value of those posts must be to alert 2+2ers as to which posters can be ignored from that point forward. At least, that's the value I gain from those posts... it saves me time reading threads when I can completely skip replies knowing that it's impossible for them to have any worthwhile content.

Here's the fact: $22 SNGs are in between $11's and $33's in terms of difficulty and profitability.

SNG's become less profitable and more difficult as you move up in buy-ins. It should be quite clear as to why that is. It may not be a completely linear relationship quantitatively (I'm not sure it isn't, though); because of all of the dynamic variables involved, but the qualitative relationship is steadfast.

This fact can be "proven" by a number of different methods. Economics supplies us with the best theoretical proof... but that's academic because this forum has supplied us all with abundant empirical proof.

There's a lot of noise in data collection, and perhaps the most significant purpose this forum serves is to broadcast the signal loud and clear.

All you have to do is ask, "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" (though personally, I would ask Eastbay or Aleo.)

Irieguy

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 03:04 AM
Let me add if you're making over 40% ROI on 10s after a few hundred, maybe you should try multitabling them instead of moving up in buyin.

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 03:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Every once in a while there will even be a post stating the opinion that a higher buy-in is easier than a lower buy-in. The only value of those posts must be to alert 2+2ers as to which posters can be ignored from that point forward. At least, that's the value I gain from those posts... it saves me time reading threads when I can completely skip replies knowing that it's impossible for them to have any worthwhile content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the slam... but I have to disagree. Perhaps it is a linear model for you and your style of play, and perhaps even the majority. I undoubtedly do better at 20s than 10s or 5s though. Many poker players find themselves doing more poorly against weak competition than against other good players. Feel free to immediately ignore all of my worthless posts in the future though, I will sleep fine at night.

lorinda
01-12-2005, 03:19 AM
Here comes another slap I'm afraid.

Although your sample is small, I'll go with the belief that you are doing better in 20s than 10s.*

This should alert you to the fact that there is a major hole in your understanding of how to beat bad players.
If this hole is allowed to go unfilled, you will suffer at higher levels when people will be strong enough to take advantage of this leak.

*Edit: Otherwise this advice is worthless anyway

Lori

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 03:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the slam... but I have to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted before I saw your reply, so I hope you understand that it wasn't a personal attack. I also hope that you can appreciate the fact that sometimes I try to be funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I undoubtedly do better at 20s than 10s or 5s though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you have no doubt at all. I am equally sure that your skewed results are just noise.

[ QUOTE ]

Many poker players find themselves doing more poorly against weak competition than against other good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nonsense. Oft-stated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Zero-sum game theory makes this impossible, and I have explained this at length in prior posts if you are interested.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to immediately ignore all of my worthless posts in the future though, I will sleep fine at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not a personal attack. If I had seen your post first, I would have made a different joke. But I think it's more important to offer sound direction than to spare somebody's feelings through acquiession. (I don't think that's a real word.)

You are really wrong. I promise.

Irieguy

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 03:33 AM
Ok I thought you were personally going after me, no offense taken. That said, I find it absurd that you consider your theories to be infallible. Again, I am not challenging that in a statistical model, average players generally would perform worse as the buy in increases. However, you seem to be saying that nobody can possibly defy this model.


About being worse against bad players:

[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. Oft-stated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Zero-sum game theory makes this impossible, and I have explained this at length in prior posts if you are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is oft-stated and testified to by poker pros and amateurs alike, how is it that you can deny it? Whether it is psychological or the good player's fault, that doesn't change that the phenomena exists.

lorinda
01-12-2005, 03:39 AM
that doesn't change that the phenomena exists.

You are not distinguishing between good and tight.

By definition, if the players are better, other players will do less well against them.

If the players are tighter, then it is possible that you have a strategy that is flawed against the looser players.

As I mentioned in the previous post, if you start using the "tight player" strategy in the higher limits, you will be found out and the better players will mimic the play of the "bad" players that you can't beat.

If you don't ever intend to improve or move up, and the sample is good for another 1000 or so SNGs, then fine, but if you intend to do this all the way to the top then you should go to the 10s again at some point and work out what you are doing wrong.

Lori

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 03:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That said, I find it absurd that you consider your theories to be infallible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't invent any of this.

[ QUOTE ]
However, you seem to be saying that nobody can possibly defy this model.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to defy the model. All you have to do is look at a statistically insignificant amount of data and draw contradictory conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]

If it is oft-stated and testified to by poker pros and amateurs alike, how is it that you can deny it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define a bad player as somebody who loses money, and a good player as somebody who wins money, where would the money go if they played in the same game? Unless Partypoker is cheating you... it kind of has to move from loser to winner.

If the money moves from winner to loser, there are only 2 possible explanations: 1. Variance 2. You have your winners and losers mixed up.

If I were to drop an object, and it floated into the air. The most likely explanation is NOT that the theory of gravity is wrong. That balloon is coming down eventually no matter how long you watch it rise.


Irieguy

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 03:50 AM
You seem to be trying to prove to me something which I am not even debating, all I am saying is that some players perform better against stronger competition. I noted that this is obviously not the majority. Are you saying that if I played say, 10000 each of 5, 10 and 20 sit and gos, I would undoubtedly end up with a lower average placing for each level of buy in?

Myst
01-12-2005, 04:09 AM
Its all about playing to the level of your competition and switching gears. If you know your competition is loose/reckless, (i.e. $10+1) then you gotta play tighter. If your competition is capable of laying down strong hands (i.e. $100+9), than bluffs/plays can be employed.

Adaptability is all that it comes down to. Good players ADAPT to the level of their competition.

elcheapo
01-12-2005, 04:41 AM
I think I you responded to a couple of my posts where I said my game is tailored better to the 30-50's versus the 20s. Here are my results for 182 (30's) and 10 (50's) vs maybe 250 20's with a ROI around 25-30. Anyways:

1. 30
2. 27
3. 28

for an itm ~ 45 and an ROI ~43% and at the 50's
1. 4
2. 0
3. 0

for an itm around 40% and an ROI (too high to be sustainable)

I guess I could be considered a bad poker player if I can't capitalize on the 90% populous of stupid crazy fish as opposed to the 50-70 % SCF at the 30-50 levels. If you were playing a NL cash game with fixed blinds you would want a lot of bad players but with escalating blinds and hundreds of different players with different levels of insanity its just easier on me to play at a higher level (not necessarily player ability just buyin).Anybody who has seen me play or at least played themselves on empire or party could maybe shed some light on what I'm saying.

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 04:59 AM
Let's say there are 3 poker players:

1. You
2. Player B
3. Player C

You all have a large, but finite bankroll. (This is similar to on-line poker... there is a large, but finite amount of money on deposit.)

You have the option of 2 games: $10 each, winner take all, and $20 each, winner take all. You get to choose your opponent, and the game stakes.

You don't know this to begin with, but Player B will beat you 60% of the time, and you will beat Player C 60% of the time. You are stuck together with nothing to do but play poker (this is analagous to logging in).

You decide to play against Player B for $10. You win. You then decide to play against Player B for $20. You win again. You decide that you are better than Player B and you play for $20 several times. Before too long, you realize that you are losing money to him. The longer you play, the more you begin to realize each time you buy-in with him for $20, you only leave with $16 on average.

You then decide to play against Player C for a while. You are running really badly, so you just play for $10. You lose. Now you are worried, but you have nothing else to do, so you decide to play for the lowest amount possible. After a while, you realize that you are winning. You decide to try playing for $20. After a while, you realize that you are still winning and you decide to just play him for $20 as much as possible. Every so often, you think you have imporoved to the point where you can beat Player B and you try to play him. You find that you lose on average every time you try to play Player B for a significant amount of time.

Then the rules change and Player B gets to choose his opponent. Who would he choose?

Then the rules change again and Player C gets to choose his opponent. Who would he choose? He doesn't really even want to play, but there's nothing else to do so he chooses you and plays for $10 as slowly as possible.

Then the rules change and everybody gets to choose. Player B never gets to play... but he has an idea. He offers a game for $100. Now, sometimes when you are up $100, you decide to play against Player B. You know you will lose in the long run, but you just want to play him once and win $100. Eventually you stop doing this, and Player C never does this. He wants to, but he could play you for a lot longer at only $10 per game, and he can't afford to go broke because there is nothing else to do but play poker.

Then 3 new players walk into the room and everybody gets to choose who they want to play and for how much. The choices are now $10, $20 or $100.

Before too long, the steady-state is reached again. Of the six players, the one who wins the most will take any game he can get, but he prefers the $100 game. The player who loses the most will only play for $10, and he doesn't much care who he plays as long as it is only $10 and he can play really slowly.

New players continue to enter the room, and before long, there are games available at each level. There will be more games at the $10 level than the $100 level. The players who are winning at the $100 level will always beat the players playing at the $10 level if they play together long enough.

As long as there is money, and free choice, this equilibrium will exist as-is for as long as the game is available. The individual players at each level will change from time to time, but the average $100 player will always beat the average $20 player who will always beat the average $10 player... on average. This is where the confusion lies. The individual players at each level will chage from time to time, but the equilibrium will be undisturbed.

Now, here's the most important point: As long as the $100 game is going, there will be some players playing at the $20 level that cannot win at the $10 level.

Irieguy

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 05:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who has seen me play or at least played themselves on empire or party could maybe shed some light on what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't wait.

Irieguy

codewarrior
01-12-2005, 08:49 AM
I must concur with Lorinda. I thought the same - that $20's were easier to beat than $5's or 10's. And they were - for my style of play at the time, which was excruciatingly tight/weak, but super aggresive when I had the goods.

After a year or so of not playing $5's or $10's I recently started playing them once in a while for the hell of it, one or two a day. Throw in a couple low buy-in turbos also. It is amazing how easy they are to beat now. You definately must learn to play these people differently, and use solid tournament theory principles (which you should be doing in every game, as should we all).

I should also add that playing a few of these cheap games also helps your regular, higher buy-in SnG's as well, again using plays that fit your opponent. Keep your eye out, too. At least on Stars, you will see a few regular opponents riding the ladder up and down from 10's all the way to 50's and back, and some of them shouldn't be playing for pennies /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

Did I just post actual content? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Zelcious
01-12-2005, 09:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Now, here's the most important point: As long as the $100 game is going, there will be some players playing at the $20 level that cannot win at the $10 level.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please clarify this last statement. I cannot see that this would be a conclusion of the above reasoning.

ReDeYES88
01-12-2005, 09:41 AM
.. .and on the 8th day Irie created PartyPoker . . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

. .now i just need to find one of those metal thingys for the back of my car showing a playing card with legs, then i'm set .. . .

codewarrior
01-12-2005, 09:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
now i just need to find one of those metal thingys for the back of my car showing a playing card with legs, then i'm set .. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD, I actually LOL'd at this /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

skipperbob
01-12-2005, 10:30 AM
Here's my Theory, Irie: You're a Faggot

Myst
01-12-2005, 11:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Here's my Theory, Irie: You're a Faggot

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be a dick [censored].

etgryphon
01-12-2005, 11:47 AM
This is one of the stupidest arguments and it definately needs to get off the playground...

Irieguy: 100% right in his posts about the equilibrium

with that said...

Goldserpah: You are also correct for your game and anyone else who finds themselves playing better at a higher level. The fact that you cant seem to beat the lower limits is a leak as lorinda and irieguy have stated. And when there is a leak you can be exploited. So with that being said...A 22 SnG player who has figured out how to beat all the levels below because he has learned to adjust will eventually kill you if you "just play in the buyins that you fair best" and cant beat the lower buyins because "They're too crazy" or "It's all luck at that buyin".

Now, that you have discovered a leak try to fix it. No one intelligent is saying you are stupid, just want to point out a fallacy in your logic that could come around to bite you. I, for one, want to get all the advice I can get from a player who has proven himself\herself. You can still disagree, but they are probably going to be right most of the time.

my two cents...

-Gryph

vindikation
01-12-2005, 11:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let me add if you're making over 40% ROI on 10s after a few hundred, maybe you should try multitabling them instead of moving up in buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have multitabled the $10's but the "fun" factor kind of goes down for me. I can multitable ring games no problem because of the static blinds, but the shrinking table size and increasing blinds takes too much out of me to 4 table at this stage in my SnG playing.

I only want to play maybe 2-3 SnG's a day, so I'd rather play individual $20's over multitabling $10's. I understand and am willing to accept a lower RIO% & ITM% for an increase in enjoyment. Poker is just for fun for me, not really a serious source of income.

Thanks for the replies, sorry to start this flame war.

revots33
01-12-2005, 01:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be trying to prove to me something which I am not even debating, all I am saying is that some players perform better against stronger competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know why I keep losing... too many games where everyone's worse than me. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Seriously though... I think the confusion is between better results and fewer bad beats.

Worse competition = better results but more bad beats
Better competition = worse results but fewer bad beats

Many players, after a run of bad beats, are convinced that playing against better players will improve their results. In the long run that can't happen.

1C5
01-12-2005, 01:40 PM
You mean like this: /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Hero (t1015)
BB (t1610)
UTG (t1730)
MP (t1970)
Button (t1675)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">MP raises to t800</font>, Button folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t1015 (All-In)</font>, BB folds, MP calls t215.

Flop: (t2230) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Turn: (t2230) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

River: (t2230) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t2230

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has Qd Qh (two pair, queens and sixes).
MP has 7s 7d (full house, sevens full of sixes).
Outcome: MP wins t2230. </font>

B00T
01-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Everyone is correct in their analysis. Your game may be suited againist better players thats just your playing style. $20's will be more difficult if you employ the optimal strategy at each level. You are not applying the optimal strategy AT the $5 + $10 tables FOR that game.

The only viable arguement that you didnt create nor even comparable is that the $50 S+G's may be easier than the $30's.

There are a couple of reasons for this if you want to try and formulate that arguement.

Irie do you want to comment on that?

ColdestCall
01-12-2005, 02:14 PM
Great post, Irie, which brings to mind a question I've been mulling over....

It is clear that the online poker universe is expanding rapidly, and that this is putting upward pressure on the size of the biggest games offered. Now we've got 1K SNGs. Where do you think this stops? Personally, I believe that the upper limit is more of a function of the danger of collusion than the actual amount of money flowing into the online poker economy (although, naturally, there is an uppper limit on that as well, we're just not anywhere near it yet). I think that anything higher than 5k is going to attract collusion (if the 1ks havent attracted it already). Just wondering if you had given this any thought.

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 02:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]


The only viable arguement that you didnt create nor even comparable is that the $50 S+G's may be easier than the $30's.

There are a couple of reasons for this if you want to try and formulate that arguement.

Irie do you want to comment on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. The $55's are harder than the $33's.

Irieguy

se2schul
01-12-2005, 03:36 PM
I'm currently playing the 10's and would like to move to the 20's once my play has improved (a mere 20% ROI 4-tabling the 10's) and I have the bankroll.

I agree with Irie (as would just about everyone who has taken ECON101 and has some common sense) that the 20's will have better players than the 10's. Certain playing styles may be more suited to the players at the 20's. I don't know how I'd stack up.

My question is very general:
What adjustments does one have to make when moving from the 10's to the 20's? Tighter or looser pre-flop? Higher calling standards? Any other considerations?

Thanks,
ss

El Maximo
01-12-2005, 03:49 PM
I havent played enough of the 20s and 30s to get a true feel for how much tougher they are than the 10s. Ive seen some really wild tables and some really tight tables. Ive seen this at the 10s also. I know when I played limit $1-$2 was considerably tighter than .50-1.00 or $3-$6. $3-$6 tended to be more loose-aggressive while $1-$2 was more tight-passive. Alot of the BB/hr win rates were higher at .50-1.00 and $3-$6 than $1-$2. The general consensus was that $1-$2 was a stepping stone for the better micro-players while $3-$6 was full of bad aggressive players who could afford to lose more money at poker. I dont know if this is true of the 10s, 20s, and 30s. Im doing better at the 30s than 20s. This could easily be variance. Both are tougher than the 10s.

goldseraph
01-12-2005, 04:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you cant seem to beat the lower limits is a leak as lorinda and irieguy have stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a fact actually, I am profitable on 10s (never really played 5s). I am just twice as profitable on 20s up to this point. I think this is a combination of not knowing how to exploit very loose and reckless players, and also playing more wildly myself because of a smaller buy-in. For some reason my percentage of 1st places is much higher on the 20s, while I seem to get a lot of 3rds on the 10s. I thank Irieguy for his contributions as I respect him a lot, I just don't agree with some of his 'facts'. To the original poster, if you only want to play 2-3 SNG's a day, then how about play 2 10's and 1 20... ease your way into moving up. Eventually make that 1 10 and 2 20's when you feel comfortable.

avidguru
01-12-2005, 05:50 PM
He had a 19% chance to win pre-flop - not exactly a bad beat in my book. You did the right thing and got nailed - it happens, get over it.

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]

What adjustments does one have to make when moving from the 10's to the 20's? Tighter or looser pre-flop? Higher calling standards? Any other considerations?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where many people go astray in their intellectual approach to SNGs. You don't need to actively extract money from players until they stop actively donating it to you. That doesn't occur until the higher levels. All you have to do at the low levels to earn money is resist the seemingly uncontrolable urge to put as many of your chips as posible into a pot with the worst of it.

Until you master that fundamental concept, everything else discussed on this forum is meaningless. That mastery alone will earn you money at the $22 level.

Now, if you apply advanced SNG strategy to the $11 level, you can easily finish ITM 48% of the time with an ROI above 40%. I've seen stats from a player who does exactly that. But that player can beat the $33's for more money per SNG, and soon the forces of equilibrium discussed in this thread will compell that player to do exactly that.

Irieguy

bball904
01-12-2005, 06:36 PM
Irie,

Great post, as per usual enlightening and entertaining. The thing I don't understand is why do you spend so much time and energy bothering to try and explain to people that are clearly too thick to understand it. I've learned lately that even 1000 sng's isn't enough data to reliably gauge a long term ROI and these clowns like to base assumptions on 100 or even 4 wins in 10.

Regretably, I have to "conclude" that they are right though and you are wrong. I have a 17.8% ROI in 817 55's and only a 10.5% ROI in 176 33's. Curses, the numbers just don't lie.

microbet
01-12-2005, 06:45 PM
Sheesh, not even a 1000 SNG's to know where you are at?

When the hell am I supposed to move up from the $11's?

There's no way I'm playing more than 500 (assuming I have a good ROI at that point).

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 07:49 PM
You don't have to know what your ROI is to move up.

Irieguy

adanthar
01-12-2005, 07:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The thing I don't understand is why do you spend so much time and energy bothering to try and explain to people that are clearly too thick to understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, if I explain the same concept eight times in three days, three things will happen:

1)I get a much more thorough understanding of it by being able to put it into words succinctly;
2)I get bored as hell;
3)If I ever write a book (possible), I can throw in enough examples based on the explanation people understand the best to make it readable.

Oh, and I grow a bigger e-penis on the Internet.

codewarrior
01-12-2005, 08:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I grow a bigger e-penis on the Internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it all back - this is POTD material right here... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

microbet
01-12-2005, 08:29 PM
Yeah, and if I were desperate for income from poker (not that I couldn't use the money) I'd move up sooner, but I sorta want to PROVE I'm winning at each level before I move up. I know that is just pride F'ing with me.

(I'm not moving up now anyway, because I'm only 2 tabling - yesterday I got a new monitor to start 4 tabling - gonna try that for a while)

david050173
01-12-2005, 08:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
\I think this is a combination of not knowing how to exploit very loose and reckless players, and also playing more wildly myself because of a smaller buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

By playing loose and wild, I would read that you lay worse at the lower limits. Then it makes a lot of sense that you are not getting the same return. Why don't you play your A game at the lower buy ins? If you can't, that is a mental problem you have not an argument that the games are harder.

And again if your sample size is only a couple hundred games, your results are not that meaningfull. If that isn't clear, change your results by moving a couple of first to 4ths or vice versa and see how much your results change.

Irieguy
01-12-2005, 11:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, here's the most important point: As long as the $100 game is going, there will be some players playing at the $20 level that cannot win at the $10 level.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please clarify this last statement. I cannot see that this would be a conclusion of the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as a bigger game exists, there will be players at the next lowest game who are working their way up because they are lucky losers, and players who are falling down from the big game because they are just realizing that they are losers.

These players belong in the $10 pool, but they've lost their way. Since the $10 pool is so much larger than the bigger pools, these players will often outnumber the players who are playing the $20 game because that is their appropriate skill level.

The equilibrium model I explained is an inductive reasoning model that began with one player wagering as much as possible against a better player because he didn't know any better. Once the model expands to a large number of players, it can be deduced that there will be a large number of players at the second level who don't belong there. They will want to take their shot at the big game, and need to win some money to do so.

Human behavior on a large scale can be predicted remarkably well with mathematic models. That's what economics does: it applies predictive models to human decision making. Our gut reaction is that it shouldn't work. "No stupid formula can tell ME what I'M going to decide!" Well, it turns out that Abraham Maslow and BF Skinner were smart MoFos, and it's really simple to predict how people will behave.

Irieguy

HoldingFolding
01-13-2005, 01:49 AM
I would say the most obvious reason you have a better ROI at the 20s than the 10s is that you are not the same player. Example; you play too LAGgy at the 10s, but still have an ROI good enough to aloow you to move up. The increase in stake makes you more conservative and you tighten up, this, until you become comfortable at that level, improves your results.

rickr
01-13-2005, 11:26 AM
Irie,
Do the extra chips that start out at the $50 offset your numbers at all? I've always heard people complain that the small starting stacks and fast blinds of party turn it into a luckfest. Wondering if the larger chipstack would remove some of that luck factor, thereby making $50's closer to $30's. Did I make since? Let's say that all tourneys have a 20% luck factor, and the extra chips in $50's offset the luck factor by 10%. Would the $50's and $30's not then be the same? Or is it given that everyone starts with the same chips, once churned, the cream still rises to the top? If that's the case, wouldn't people who complain about party's blind structure and such be totally off base?

Thanks,
Rick

B00T
01-13-2005, 11:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The only viable arguement that you didnt create nor even comparable is that the $50 S+G's may be easier than the $30's.

There are a couple of reasons for this if you want to try and formulate that arguement.

Irie do you want to comment on that?


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



Sure. The $55's are harder than the $33's.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Irie,
Do the extra chips that start out at the $50 offset your numbers at all? I've always heard people complain that the small starting stacks and fast blinds of party turn it into a luckfest. Wondering if the larger chipstack would remove some of that luck factor, thereby making $50's closer to $30's. Did I make since? Let's say that all tourneys have a 20% luck factor, and the extra chips in $50's offset the luck factor by 10%. Would the $50's and $30's not then be the same? Or is it given that everyone starts with the same chips, once churned, the cream still rises to the top? If that's the case, wouldn't people who complain about party's blind structure and such be totally off base?


[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point but apparently Dr Know It All provides no reasoning but expects us to take his wiseass comments and leave it at that.

Irieguy
01-13-2005, 02:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]

That was my point but apparently Dr Know It All provides no reasoning but expects us to take his wiseass comments and leave it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations.

This type of reply makes me less than eager to do something like that again.

Irieguy

revots33
01-13-2005, 02:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I would say the most obvious reason you have a better ROI at the 20s than the 10s is that you are not the same player. Example; you play too LAGgy at the 10s, but still have an ROI good enough to aloow you to move up. The increase in stake makes you more conservative and you tighten up, this, until you become comfortable at that level, improves your results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Many players play very loose at the lower levels, but once they move up they tighten up and play more conservatively.

So, if they were too loose at $5 they might be playing better poker at $10 or $20 without even realizing it.

But you don't have to move up in order to play more correctly. Purposely seeking out games with better competition is not a way to grow your bankroll. The better solution would be to tighten up at the lower games until you beat them consistently, then move up. This will give you more skills that can be used against different types of opponents at the higher levels.

There will never be an easier game to beat in the long run than the one with the worst players. There's simply no way to argue that point.

PrayingMantis
01-13-2005, 02:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations.

This type of reply makes me less than eager to do something like that again.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]


Irie, although this very same issue was discussed to death several times before, with some extra-stubborn posters (remember linus?), you somehow managed to put together some really interesting posts in this thread, shedding new light on the subject of SNGs economy, and I enjoyed reading them very much.

I know exactly how it feels when you get all sort of nasty (and very stupid) replies after putting time and effort in a thread. It feels like you don't want to post anymore. It amazes me how people can't simpy appriciate the fact that a MUCH more expirienced player than them is actually giving them FREE advice. Unbelievable in any context. The problem is not that they are arguing with you, of course, arguments are good, but that they simply think you're just full of xxxx or something, and want you to stop telling them they're wrong. They can't accept it, because they are very very good players, of course (they just have this minor problem of not being able to crush low buy in SNGs with terrible players in them... but nobody's perfect /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Constantly dismissing sound advice on this forums, without any half-reasonable argument, is one funny form of stupidity, IMO. It is basically giving up on free money, that's how I see it.

But again, not really surprising if you consider the huge amount of misunderstandings in this game, which you see every day at the tables too. The fact that it's pretty common here on 2+2, only tells you what a long way one has to go before really getting good in this game.


Great posts, anyway.

kspade
01-13-2005, 03:02 PM
Quote:
&gt;&gt;Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations. &lt;&lt;

And I for one appreciated it, thank you!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

floppy
01-13-2005, 03:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Human behavior on a large scale can be predicted remarkably well with mathematic models. That's what economics does: it applies predictive models to human decision making. Our gut reaction is that it shouldn't work. "No stupid formula can tell ME what I'M going to decide!" Well, it turns out that Abraham Maslow and BF Skinner were smart MoFos, and it's really simple to predict how people will behave.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This always reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes:

A person is smart, people are stupid
- J, Men In Black

I have a few questions about your theoretical model, Irie:

- You have:
Player C beats Player B
Player B beats Player A

So Player C, after watching player B play player A, will want to play player A, but how does this establish that Player C beats player A?

Or are you saying that, per Occam's Razor, the simplest assumption is that there is a transitive property for poker players, and that a poker room where this transitive property applies accurately represents real poker rooms on the Internet?

floppy
01-13-2005, 03:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]

This is where many people go astray in their intellectual approach to SNGs. You don't need to actively extract money from players until they stop actively donating it to you. That doesn't occur until the higher levels. All you have to do at the low levels to earn money is resist the seemingly uncontrolable urge to put as many of your chips as posible into a pot with the worst of it.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but if you're playing against players with looser standards, how do you know when you've got the worst of it?

Big Limpin'
01-13-2005, 04:28 PM
That question is not stupid at all. I cant believe it took 50 posts to get to this.

I'd field an answer, but frankly, i can't. I am as stuck on this as you are. When i play a $11, when i bust out OTM, its often on just ONE hand. I push what seems to be an advantage, and get shown some silly hole cards that were badly misplayed, and thus i never see it coming.

Looking forward to anyones advice on avoiding this

revots33
01-13-2005, 04:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but if you're playing against players with looser standards, how do you know when you've got the worst of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can't KNOW when you've got the worst of it. You can, however, make an educated decision based on your cards, how your opponent has been playing, and his likely range of hands.

I find that at low buyins I usually do well by simply playing tighter than the fish who will go all-in with A6 or KJ. If you are pushing in all your chips with premium hands you will more often than not have the best of it against these types of players.

B00T
01-13-2005, 04:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yikes. I put more thought and time into this thread than usual and thought I provided thorough reasoning and explanations.

This type of reply makes me less than eager to do something like that again.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one time in this thread that you mentioned anything about how the starting chip stacks (WHICH ARE DIFFERENT) between the $30 and $50 S+G's make the game play a little differently, and PERHAPS, not definitely but MAYBE how the $50's could in fact be easier than $30's. Deeper stacks help the better player and PERHAPS the upgrade of skill from $30 to $50 is not as strong compared to the upgrade of chips that put you that far ahead of the worse players where you will beat them more often.

No, but instead you give a wisecrack answer to my non wisecrack question. Thats why you get a snide response. Let me know if you want to come off your high horse and provide your reasoning since you apparently have all the answers yet just give BS replies.

B00T
01-13-2005, 05:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is not that they are arguing with you, of course, arguments are good, but that they simply think you're just full of xxxx or something, and want you to stop telling them they're wrong. They can't accept it, because they are very very good players, of course (they just have this minor problem of not being able to crush low buy in SNGs with terrible players in them... but nobody's perfect )


[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont you and Irie have a sitdown session where you ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN POSTS before making your comments. I made that remark because of his stupid answer where he says NOTHING about the stack sizes. I am not complaining I cant beat $10 S+G's, I was asking something that was NOT covered here. So maybe both of you can stop worrying about the first negative comments someone makes and then tries to say thats why they dont help. They give a stupid answer to a legitamite question and when that person retaliates they scream wolf because someone was mean to them and that their "respected poster" status should dismiss them from any wrongdoing.

Irieguy
01-13-2005, 05:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but if you're playing against players with looser standards, how do you know when you've got the worst of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to know in every instance. You just have to know when you rate to be ahead, and when you rate to be behind... and then act accordingly.

Irieguy

revots33
01-13-2005, 05:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only viable arguement that you didnt create nor even comparable is that the $50 S+G's may be easier than the $30's.

There are a couple of reasons for this if you want to try and formulate that arguement.

Irie do you want to comment on that?


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



Sure. The $55's are harder than the $33's.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't really see anything wise-ass or sarcastic in his answer.

I think his point was simpe. It gets more difficult as you move up in buyin. Higher buyins = better players = tougher games. Regardless of stack sizes.

I'm not really understanding you blowing a gasket over this.

Irieguy
01-13-2005, 05:31 PM
Not sure why you're so angry, but if you'd like to see more of a discussion on the effect that differing starting stack sizes make, you can search for a thread called:

"Rhythm in the Madness II: The $55's"

Irieguy

B00T
01-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Thank you.

bball904
01-13-2005, 05:36 PM
rickr,

I actually believe that the higher chip count at the 55's has the opposite effect than you're suggesting. I think it contributes to making them play more difficult.

The reason is that the typical 55 player has much more experience and a better developed set of skills for play on the bubble. My experience is that the biggest difference in play from the 33's to the 55's is the quality of play on the bubble and it is much easier to exploit the bubble situations at the 33's. That more than makes up for the difference in luck derived from the higher starting chip counts.

lz5t38
01-13-2005, 05:44 PM
This is good stuff. I am wondering though can you account for players improving their game as they play? Is this what you mean when you say that the individuals change but the general distribution stays the same?

Irieguy
01-13-2005, 05:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]

So Player C, after watching player B play player A, will want to play player A, but how does this establish that Player C beats player A?

Or are you saying that, per Occam's Razor, the simplest assumption is that there is a transitive property for poker players, and that a poker room where this transitive property applies accurately represents real poker rooms on the Internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because poker is a zero-sum game, you are either the type of player that makes plays that rate to lose money, or you are the type of player that makes plays that rate to win money.

As long as there is somebody willing to play badly, all you have to do to win is NOT play badly.

It is the zero-sum nature of the game that creates a situation where the best player knows he can beat the worst player more soundly than the mediocre player.

This whole model only starts to change at the highest level. If you have a table full of players who never make "losing" plays... then the only way to win is to outplay them. This is so difficult, and so rare, that it can basically be ignored. Here's a real life example: at the Hustler last year the biggest game going was a stud game that had: John Juanda, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Larry Flynt playing. When Laryy Flynt would go to the bathroom, the others would stop playing. They would just take a break and wait for him to come back. The fact that those players were playing together, and how they would behave when one particular player left, says a lot about zero-sum equilibrium and what it means to be a poker expert.

So, if player A beats player B, and player B beats player C, will player A beat player C? Yes. How sure can you be that this is true? Very sure... as long as you define the term "beat" correctly and you are not talking about precisely the top 3 players in a field of many.

Irieguy

Irieguy
01-13-2005, 05:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is good stuff. I am wondering though can you account for players improving their game as they play? Is this what you mean when you say that the individuals change but the general distribution stays the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Nice first post, brief and insightful. Welcome to the forum.

Irieguy

SuitedSixes
01-13-2005, 07:10 PM
Irie-
As long as we're discussing Economics as they apply to fish harvesting. Is there a danger of the SNG pool drying up? It seems like with ring games there is always some reward, even the worst of the fish will drag a pot every now and then, but isn't there far less of a reward for a fish competing against 9 other players, and probably not being able to beat even 7 of them? What are your views on this?

Beavis68
01-13-2005, 07:16 PM
*totally pointless reply*

Actually Irie, poker is a -sum game due to rake and vigorish. The house is always removing money from the pool. You not only need to make moves that are profitable, but profitable enough to out-run the house take.

It has been a while since I have played a SnG on party, but I myself found the 20s to be easier than the 5s when I stopped. The 5s had turned into min raising rock gardens and we would still be 7 handed with blinds of 100/200 or some crap. I never could get a line on how to profitably steal enough chips to gain a lead.

The 20s were more like the 5s were when I first started. A lot of players mixing it up early. I didn't play enough 20s to get an accurate ROI, but they were fun.

gazarsgo
01-13-2005, 08:16 PM
Busting in this position, assuming you did not ignore clear signs that you were beat (and additionally did not read those signs as a bluff), is what provides the variance in a SNG. It could be that you have small leaks in your game that allow you to bust at this point vs a marginal player such as not pushing your edges early enough before you get blinded down, but it's probably just variance and thinking otherwise is results-oriented thinking that's going to lead you down a bad path.

The best thing to do is post the hand on 2+2 if you aren't sure, and have other people look at your play.

bpotus
01-13-2005, 10:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
rickr,

I actually believe that the higher chip count at the 55's has the opposite effect than you're suggesting. I think it contributes to making them play more difficult.

The reason is that the typical 55 player has much more experience and a better developed set of skills for play on the bubble. My experience is that the biggest difference in play from the 33's to the 55's is the quality of play on the bubble and it is much easier to exploit the bubble situations at the 33's. That more than makes up for the difference in luck derived from the higher starting chip counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great thread going here. Usually I'd just be lurking around and reading, but I thought I'd post my observations. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm usually a 55 player on PP. Been tracking the past 200 w/an ITM of 39% and ROI of 31%. (Started multi-tabling lately at 4 tabes, from before w/just 1 table going and my ROI was 40%+/-) I've been watching many many many more than that to track opponents too so I think I could speak a little rationally about the level. I've played a decent amount of every level (except 200's).

For those mentioning that play is much different from the 30's and the 50's in the sense that the 50's are much harder, well, I just don't buy it. Sure there are more skilled opponents who steal more too, but I tend to think that the extra starting chips are a godsend in that if you are stupid (or unlucky) early and lose half your stack, you still have a good chance to win it if you don't bleed the rest of your chips. (aside from the obvious implied odds blah blah blah obvious other points made here already) At the lower buyins you're pretty much screwed if you lose a big hand in the first 3 levels. This is especially true of players who play a short stack correctly and parlay that into a big stack on the bubble.

As an experiment (and to get used to it), I started multi-tabling lately starting from the 10's. I also figured that I'd learn how to play different sets of opponents based on different skill levels. I never really started here so it was a whole new level for me. Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing compared to the higher buy-ins where people go into a cocoon come bubble time. To put it another way, why exactly do people hate tables that go to say Level 6/7 w/ 4 or 5 people left? Remember, tight early on doesn't equal skilled opposition later on in the sense that some people just never change gears. Personally, I love that situation as it creates more opportunities for me to pick up blinds when other people are trying to finish ITM. Big stack or not, there's a huge edge in the 50's where opponents won't call you come bubble time that just doesn't really exist at the lower levels. I understand about the GAP concept and all but I think it's just the perfect level where you unconsciously start playing better to try to inch into the money versus others going all out for 1st place. We could go into a whole other discussion regarding this matter (if it hasn't been done already), and you could even say money doesn't mean much to some people, but to MOST I think this is the level where $$$ comes into their heads.

Oh and BTW, out of the 10-30's, I'd say the 20's were the most difficult out of the 4 lower buyins.

Beavis68
01-13-2005, 10:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]

To put it another way, why exactly do people hate tables that go to say Level 6/7 w/ 4 or 5 people left? Remember, tight early on doesn't equal skilled opposition later on in the sense that some people just never change gears.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really agree with this, I just havent figured out how to best exploit it. Especially against players that may be min raising with QJ or AA.

bball904
01-14-2005, 12:00 AM
ahhhh, exactly the opposite of Irie's reply to lz5t38

adanthar
01-14-2005, 12:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I sure do hate it when people think 'eh, it's just $10' and call a PF reraise and then a flop all in with bottom pair. It's much harder to beat them with their flopped five outs than it is to just go all in on the bubble with pocket sixes and hope that you win the flip when AQ calls.

I've seen a thousand of these posts and I get them less and less every single time.

PrayingMantis
01-14-2005, 12:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing


[/ QUOTE ]

My first candidate for "Poker quote of the year 2005".

(EDIT: meant it to be a reply to bpotus, not adanthar, who is not responsible for creating this one... just quoting it)

In a deep sense, it _is_ hard to beat EXTREMELY STRONG players who money means "nothing" to them (Unger was a famous example), but this is absolutely and completely **not true** when you talk about HORRIBLE players who don't care about their money, like some of the players in the low buy-in SNGs. If your ROI is "horrible" against them (as you say), then your game is horrible. Simple as that.

bpotus
01-14-2005, 12:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I sure do hate it when people think 'eh, it's just $10' and call a PF reraise and then a flop all in with bottom pair. It's much harder to beat them with their flopped five outs than it is to just go all in on the bubble with pocket sixes and hope that you win the flip when AQ calls.

I've seen a thousand of these posts and I get them less and less every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if I'm understanding your post correctly where you're stating that I may not be properly adjusting to the different strategies involved for both buyins, or the fact that I should want to play against opponents that aren't as skilled but I'm talking about calling all-ins on the bubble w/some real horrible hands instead of (properly) folding them allowing me to take the blinds. You could make another point here of saying that I want them to double me up but I'd much rather prefer the fold.

I truly do appreciate all your posts and respect your opinions as well, and I realize that I'm the newbie to the board so I just wanted to clarify that I'm not attacking anyone in my original post but just stating my own viewpoints. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

bpotus
01-14-2005, 12:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing


[/ QUOTE ]

My first candidate for "Poker quote of the year 2005".

In a deep sense, it _is_ hard to beat EXTREMELY STRONG players who money means "nothing" to them (Unger was a famous example), but this is absolutely and completely **not true** when you talk about HORRIBLE players who don't care about their money, like some of the players in the low buy-in SNGs. If your ROI is "horrible" against them (as you say), then your game is horrible. Simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about myself going balls to the wall near the money when I'm not worried about going out 4th where others are trying to be ITM. My post was focusing on blind stealing at Levels 5/6 as the 10's have been apparently going that far w/4-5 players lately. Also, my choice of words for horrible was one thing as in 25-30% ROI (horrible to me as I was expecting better) swinging up and down that range for about 150 tourneys (not even a good sample I realize).

Again I'm stating that my whole post could have been stupid, but it's just rambling from a different viewpoint. Isn't that what forums are all about? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PrayingMantis
01-14-2005, 01:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about myself going balls to the wall near the money when I'm not worried about going out 4th where others are trying to be ITM. My post was focusing on blind stealing at Levels 5/6 as the 10's have been apparently going that far w/4-5 players lately. Also, my choice of words for horrible was one thing as in 25-30% ROI (horrible to me as I was expecting better) swinging up and down that range for about 150 tourneys (not even a good sample I realize).

Again I'm stating that my whole post could have been stupid, but it's just rambling from a different viewpoint. Isn't that what forums are all about? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

First, 25-30% ROI is not "horrible"! What exactly were your expectations and why? If that's the lowest buy-in you've played in, I assume it's your first try of these game, and 25-30% is very nice, in any sense.

Now, regarding blind stealing - it is very possible you're not adjusting well to opposition who calls you constantly with garbage. I have a feeling you assume that since they are making "mistakes" by calling, you are making the "right" move. This is not necessarily true in a tournament enviroment, where many many times you simply _don't want_ to see a call, regadless how bad it is. So that might be something to think about. And welcome to the forums. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

bpotus
01-14-2005, 01:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about myself going balls to the wall near the money when I'm not worried about going out 4th where others are trying to be ITM. My post was focusing on blind stealing at Levels 5/6 as the 10's have been apparently going that far w/4-5 players lately. Also, my choice of words for horrible was one thing as in 25-30% ROI (horrible to me as I was expecting better) swinging up and down that range for about 150 tourneys (not even a good sample I realize).

Again I'm stating that my whole post could have been stupid, but it's just rambling from a different viewpoint. Isn't that what forums are all about? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

First, 25-30% ROI is not "horrible"! What exactly were your expectations and why? If that's the lowest buy-in you've played in, I assume it's your first try of these game, and 25-30% is very nice, in any sense.

Now, regarding blind stealing - it is very possible you're not adjusting well to opposition who calls you constantly with garbage. I have a feeling you assume that since they are making "mistakes" by calling, you are making the "right" move. This is not necessarily true in a tournament enviroment, where many many times you simply _don't want_ to see a call, regadless how bad it is. So that might be something to think about. And welcome to the forums. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand that the ROI % was not horrible but I have had very high expectations of myself ever since I was a kid. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

You're right in your second paragraph where I wasn't making the necessary adjustments at first but as I noticed the calls, I tightened up.

codewarrior
01-14-2005, 08:14 AM
Don't necessarily push unless you have the nuts. Too many people get all their chips in with say, TPTK, and go broke. Win a lot of medium sized pots, don't play thin edges, play ABC poker against a field of weak players. Keep in mind I'm talking about a table full of weak players, with maybe one or two decent players. This is god advice for any buy-in. People spend too much time and chips trying to be clever against the clueless. Real poker playing is not the edited highlights one sees on TV. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

rickr
01-14-2005, 09:05 AM
Irie,
I hope you weren't lumping me in with this post. You never responded at all to my original idea. Does it not even merit a response, or were you refering to me with the link you posted as well?

Later,
Rick

microbet
01-14-2005, 11:58 AM
Just in theory, for the sake of argument, how $22's could result in higher ROI than $11's.

Styles make fights

Ali barely beat Frazier, and then beat Foreman (not easily, but easier). Did Frazier beat Foreman? No, Foreman crushed Frazier.

Assume the $11's and the $22's are full of players who only play their hands and pay no attention to other players at the table. $11 players are loose and unpredictable. They don't really know the value of their hands, but are trying to bet for value. $22 players are very tight and weak. They bet value and at least know what good hands are. When $11 player plays $22 he loses for sure. Expert player beats the $11's, but there is high variance. It might be better in a cash game where he can win all the money, but in a tournament the most he can win is $50. Expert player goes into the $22 and almost always knows what his opponent has. Blind stealing has never been so good. They NEVER catch on. Both are beatable, but seems like the $22 game as described might have higher ROI.

Not saying this is the way it is, just that it might be possible.

Rasputin
01-14-2005, 12:07 PM
Has there been a discussion of the differing structures between sites, most particularly Stars and Party?

I can't imagine that there hasn't been but I haven't been able to find it easily and was wondering if any of y'all know of a thread.

Thanks,

microbet
01-14-2005, 12:30 PM
I searched too and couldn't find a really good one. There's a lot of comparing one site vs. another, and there is one for microlimits but it doesn't have much content.

Might be a good thread to start, but there is a lot of disagreement on the issue anyway and a lot of people say the sites change a lot over time so it might not be that helpful.

I went to party because of a bonus (I didn't even get it because I didn't play enough hands in a ring game). If I were signing up now (and I should do this anyway) I would find one of the places that just refer you somewhere else and pay you a rakeback, which is a percentage of their referral fee.

I've only played Party (and Paradise a long time ago), so I don't know first-hand, but there seems to be a general feeling that Party and Paradise have more fish and PokerStars has better players.

Rexagnirk
01-14-2005, 12:40 PM
Great thread! I was wondering about whether there had been a thread about the difference between the Party and Pstars structures as well - particularly the Turbo structure at Pstars.

Anyway, while I think it's fairly obvious that the skill level improves as the stakes rise, I also think it's entirely possible for individual players to have a higher ROI at a higher stake. A lot of people have said that in this thread, and possible explanations are either a) the player in questions changes his game (plays too loose at the lower level), or because they have holes in their games that are not exploited at say the $20 level, but it is punished at the $10 level.

Now, does there exist any model that predicts what the relationsship should be a players ROI on different levels?

stillnotking
01-14-2005, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Because poker is a zero-sum game, you are either the type of player that makes plays that rate to lose money, or you are the type of player that makes plays that rate to win money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument. However, I think there is some truth to the "rock, paper, scissors" model that some other posters are talking about. In other words, Player A may pursue a strategy that has a winning expectation vs. Player B but a losing expectation vs. Player C.

Let's say Player A is ultra-aggressive and raises with every hand, but never calls a raise. Player B is ultra-tight and only raises with the top 10% of hands, folding everything else. Player C is ultra loose, calls with 90% of hands, and never raises. C would beat A; B would beat C; A would beat B.

That is a gross simplification, of course, but player strategies do change the outcome of the game and I'm not sure it's always meaningful to put players on a continuum.

PrayingMantis
01-14-2005, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this argument. However, I think there is some truth to the "rock, paper, scissors" model that some other posters are talking about. In other words, Player A may pursue a strategy that has a winning expectation vs. Player B but a losing expectation vs. Player C.

Let's say Player A is ultra-aggressive and raises with every hand, but never calls a raise. Player B is ultra-tight and only raises with the top 10% of hands, folding everything else. Player C is ultra loose, calls with 90% of hands, and never raises. C would beat A; B would beat C; A would beat B.

That is a gross simplification, of course, but player strategies do change the outcome of the game and I'm not sure it's always meaningful to put players on a continuum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem will all this is simple: you assume that a _strong_ player has a fixed strategy. This is not true, by definition, when it comes to poker. A strong player is a strong player because he _adjusts_ better than others to any particular circumstances. That's why all the "rock, paper, scissors" models which people repeat in this thread as a "counter example" are basically wrong, when applied to this problem. They might be true for other aspects of poker, as we know, but this is, generally, not one of them.

Irieguy
01-14-2005, 01:30 PM
No, your question is a good one, it's just that I've already explained my POV on the effect of the extra starting chips and it didn't seem like a key aspect of this thread because in the end, it doesn't matter. The $55's are harder.

Check out the Rhythym in the Madness II discussion if you'd like to see more on that.

Irieguy

microbet
01-14-2005, 01:33 PM
I want to clarify this. This is purely for the sake of argument for me. I EXPECT ROI to decrease as buy-in increases. I'm just submitting that it is not provable.

There are a lot of other arguments too. The population of players do not constitute a perfect market.

Irieguy
01-14-2005, 01:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]


I also think it's entirely possible for individual players to have a higher ROI at a higher stake.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, clearly a lot of people do not want to accept the fact that the world is not flat. One thing seems strange to me, though:

If it's possible for a player to have a higher ROI at a higher limit than at a lower limit... how come nobody has ever done it?

Irieguy

PS- Oh yeah, one quick note before somebody posts their personal results. Your ROI has to be calculated from a sample size big enough to give you a reasonable confidence interval (+/- 5% seems reasonable to me), with a reasonable level of certainty (p value less than .05 seems good) AND your confidence intervals between levels can't overlap. I'm sure people will think I'm being a smart ass here, but if I asked for people to adhere to the same statistical rigors and show me that their ROI decreases as they move up in limits, I'd get a dozen responses. (There are at least that many posters who know how to keep records that have played thousands of SNGs)

ColdestCall
01-14-2005, 01:54 PM
Allright, only because I am feeling left out because you ignored my question above and answered everyone else's, I'm going to prove you wrong with some results.

MiniBet.com

.1 + .01 SNGS - 2,000 played - ITM 35%. ROI 22.9%

.2 + .02 SNGS - 2000 played - ITM 34% ROI 28%

so there, HA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

microbet
01-14-2005, 02:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Allright, only because I am feeling left out because you ignored my question above and answered everyone else's, I'm going to prove you wrong with some results.

MiniBet.com

.1 + .01 SNGS - 2,000 played - ITM 35%. ROI 22.9%

.2 + .02 SNGS - 2000 played - ITM 34% ROI 28%

so there, HA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[/ QUOTE ]

4000 micro SNG's! Are you serious? Was that you playing or did you write a bot to play? Or, Are you serious?

ColdestCall
01-14-2005, 02:15 PM
4000 micro SNG's! Are you serious? Was that you playing or did you write a bot to play? Or, Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was me. I have parlayed my original $5 investment into a bankroll of $178.58. Unfortunately, because I was unable to beat the game consistently multitabling, it took me nearly a year of consecutive 12 hr days to get in 4k tourneys. Tragically, in that time, my wife has left me, I was unable to hold down my job, my dog got lost, and my house plants died of neglect.

Do not do as I have done - stay away from the house of the rising sun!

microbet
01-14-2005, 02:58 PM
I get it now.

I have a lousy sarcasm meter.

rickr
01-14-2005, 03:48 PM
OK, went and found the thread you suggested. I think I understand and agree with you in principle. I believe the argument is in peoples perception of a good, or strong, player. I'm trying to come up with an example in laymen's terms to make people understand your take (you use way too many BIG words, lol) Let's use car racing. Almost everyone on here knows how to drive a car, so let's use that. If the day you get your learner's permit is the $5 SnG, and professional racing is $200, is there a differance in ability. Yes. Now at the $5 level I am competent, but no way am I a pro, so the $200's are out. A may be able to handle the $10's and 20's, but will not be nearly as compatent as those that have worked there way up to that point. My odds of crashing are much higher at this level. Each level has to get harder, or it would not be a level. Simple as that. Let's take the professional level. A guy running NASCAR would have differant skills than the guy running say formula 1, but they are still both pro's. Given a short adjustment period both could do well at any of the lower levels of there particular style. But the guy with the learner's permit could not move up very far before he crashes.
I believe the reason some people believe they do better at higher levels is the avoidance of bad beats. That's like saying that I can drive a car as long as it has an automatic and power everything. It may be true for you, but that doesn't mean you are better. In fact you may be handicapped by it. By short cutting the process, in the long run, you may be a weaker player. A stronger player is someone who has the ability to adjust to current conditions and play winning holdem, no matter the quality of there opponent. Luck, starting chip size, blind increase time, etc, etc, are factors that effect the short term, but in the long run it all equals out.
Am I saying basically the same thing as you Irieguy?

Later,
Rick

stillnotking
01-14-2005, 05:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this argument. However, I think there is some truth to the "rock, paper, scissors" model that some other posters are talking about. In other words, Player A may pursue a strategy that has a winning expectation vs. Player B but a losing expectation vs. Player C.

Let's say Player A is ultra-aggressive and raises with every hand, but never calls a raise. Player B is ultra-tight and only raises with the top 10% of hands, folding everything else. Player C is ultra loose, calls with 90% of hands, and never raises. C would beat A; B would beat C; A would beat B.

That is a gross simplification, of course, but player strategies do change the outcome of the game and I'm not sure it's always meaningful to put players on a continuum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem will all this is simple: you assume that a _strong_ player has a fixed strategy. This is not true, by definition, when it comes to poker. A strong player is a strong player because he _adjusts_ better than others to any particular circumstances. That's why all the "rock, paper, scissors" models which people repeat in this thread as a "counter example" are basically wrong, when applied to this problem. They might be true for other aspects of poker, as we know, but this is, generally, not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that a strong player should be able to beat any type of rote strategy. But at the $10 and $20 levels, few strong players will be found, for the reasons Irieguy outlined. Most players at those levels play their cards, then their stacks, then their position, and only after all that do they take opponents' strategies into account. That being the case, it is entirely possible that a rote aggressive strategy would be more profitable at the $20 level than the $10 level, if enough $20 players pursue a rote weak/tight strategy and enough $10 players pursue a rote weak/loose one.

Of course, all this is theoretical. Irieguy threw down the gauntlet and asked for empirical data proving that anyone does better at the $20s than the $10s. He may not get it -- my own data shows I do way better at the $10s -- but that does not mean such a player could not exist. He or she would not, however, be a "strong player", merely an aggressive one.

Irieguy
01-14-2005, 06:08 PM
Sorry, Coldest, I missed your question above.

I think you are absolutely correct and I think that collusion is a huge concern at the highest levels.

As far as your microlimit results, you didn't include your confidence intervals. But I can tell you that since your ITM% was higher at the lower limit, your ROI confidence intervals will certainly overlap and you therefore can't prove that you did any better at the $0.2 level.

So for now I'm going to smoke something else in my pipe. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Irieguy

Beavis68
01-17-2005, 11:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I also think it's entirely possible for individual players to have a higher ROI at a higher stake.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, clearly a lot of people do not want to accept the fact that the world is not flat. One thing seems strange to me, though:

If it's possible for a player to have a higher ROI at a higher limit than at a lower limit... how come nobody has ever done it?

Irieguy

PS- Oh yeah, one quick note before somebody posts their personal results. Your ROI has to be calculated from a sample size big enough to give you a reasonable confidence interval (+/- 5% seems reasonable to me), with a reasonable level of certainty (p value less than .05 seems good) AND your confidence intervals between levels can't overlap. I'm sure people will think I'm being a smart ass here, but if I asked for people to adhere to the same statistical rigors and show me that their ROI decreases as they move up in limits, I'd get a dozen responses. (There are at least that many posters who know how to keep records that have played thousands of SNGs)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is silly, I have done it, it has been over a small sample size, but the 5+1s are giving me fits lately. The style changed on there and I havent adapted to it.

I also tracked a friends stats at all levels, his best results were on the 100s.

vindikation
01-18-2005, 12:11 AM
&lt;sarcasm&gt;Obviously your friend has leaks in his game if his ROI is better at the $100's than the lower level games.&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

david050173
01-18-2005, 12:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
&lt;sarcasm&gt;Obviously your friend has leaks in his game if his ROI is better at the $100's than the lower level games.&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

more likely insufficient sample size

Rexagnirk
01-18-2005, 09:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I also think it's entirely possible for individual players to have a higher ROI at a higher stake.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, clearly a lot of people do not want to accept the fact that the world is not flat. One thing seems strange to me, though:

If it's possible for a player to have a higher ROI at a higher limit than at a lower limit... how come nobody has ever done it?

Irieguy



[/ QUOTE ]

I know about samplesizes, and as I stated earlier I agree with you that obviously the level of play increases as the stakes increases. It's a market!

When I say "Individual players", it's because I'm not 100% sure there are not exeptions to the rule that you have repeatedly stated: That every player will have a lower ROI (assuming sufficient data) as the stakes raise.

It depends on how you define it. What I was referring to in my previous post was this scenario: Let's say you have a player, A, who usually plays at the $22 level, with an ROI of X%. When he plays on the $11 level, his game changes - playing looser, loses concentration etc. In essence he's not the same player as he is on the $22 level. Consequently, his ROI is lower than X%.

If you can agree with me that he's behaving as two different players at the two levels, and if we can assume that it is possible for one player to have a higher ROI at level $22 than another player at level $11, then the conclusion is that the statement:

It is possible for an individual player to have a higher ROI at a higher level

is true.

Now, that would be an exeption to find such a player, and most of the claims a la "$22 are easier than $11" usually suffer from insufficient sample size.

Please note, I'm not saying that the earth is flat /images/graemlins/smile.gif

barry111
03-25-2005, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I also think it's entirely possible for individual players to have a higher ROI at a higher stake.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, clearly a lot of people do not want to accept the fact that the world is not flat. One thing seems strange to me, though:

If it's possible for a player to have a higher ROI at a higher limit than at a lower limit... how come nobody has ever done it?

Irieguy

PS- Oh yeah, one quick note before somebody posts their personal results. Your ROI has to be calculated from a sample size big enough to give you a reasonable confidence interval (+/- 5% seems reasonable to me), with a reasonable level of certainty (p value less than .05 seems good) AND your confidence intervals between levels can't overlap. I'm sure people will think I'm being a smart ass here, but if I asked for people to adhere to the same statistical rigors and show me that their ROI decreases as they move up in limits, I'd get a dozen responses. (There are at least that many posters who know how to keep records that have played thousands of SNGs)

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I am surprised at how far my game has come from the time that this thread was originally posted. I understand some of the things that Irieguy is saying so better now. I would encourage people new to the game to re-read this thread.
I filled one of Aleo's Excel sheets (750+ games)doing the PStars $6.50 and had a positive ROI (&gt;14%), although I was not impressed with my ROI, I could tell that I was a much better player then the field and felt that my bankroll could handle a move up. Well I have been playing the 11's and 16's and have been KILLING them. +55% ITM +60% ROI through 175 SNGs. I know, I know, small sample size and I do not expect it to continue. To keep myself in check I have been reminding myself of what Irieguy said “ …. you will run better then you ever thought you would and run worse then you ever thought you would”. Right now I am going through the better part.
Anyway my question is this.....

[ QUOTE ]
confidence interval (+/- 5% seems reasonable to me), with a reasonable level of certainty (p value less than .05 seems good)

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do I look on Aleo's spread sheet for these numbers? Does the sheet have p value? I never took stats so this is all foreign to me. Also can someone explain what this means?

[ QUOTE ]
your confidence intervals between levels can't overlap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t post much, so I will use this post to say Thank-You to all the members that add to this fourm. I spend a lot of time read this site everyday and it had helped my game so much.