Are you sure about ROI

[rwanger]

I've read some of the threads about ROI...and I found it hard to believe that the best player at Party $215's is only making $36 profit per tourney. What do you think is a reasonable Finished in Money %? I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%. So shouldn't the best players be able to get there?

I moved up to $109's this week...and in 32 tournies, had an ROI of 60%. In money 54%, with just about even distributuion between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

I know 32 is not a large sample...but I really don't feel like I have been getting exceptionally good cards, or hitting lucky hands. Just playing extremely well. Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?

I looked back to my $55's, and through 100 tournies had an ROI of 20%. My in money was 43%, BUT my 1st:2nd:3rd was 12:15:18.....stacked in favor of thirds. Anyway, I AM playing much better now.

Anyone else at the $50/100/200s want to share stats?
(even if you say this is just a huge streak, I will try not to believe you, I want to think I will keep running this well)

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?


[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be "bizarre" but it is a (VERY!) short-term streak, whether it feels like one or not.

eastbay

[Jurollo]

come back in 2K tournies, and you'll still have a small sample size... I was thought after an amazing run of a 500% ROI in a sample of 1 tourney I was killing the SNGs, come to find out my real ROI was somewhere near 22%... oh well, the sample size fairy struck again!
~Justin

[rwanger]

Ha ha. Nice example. I'm not saying that 60% is sustainable (but what do I know), I just find it hard to believe that a percentage in the low 20's is the best anyone can do. What was your in money %?

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read some of the threads about ROI...and I found it hard to believe that the best player at Party $215's is only making $36 profit per tourney. What do you think is a reasonable Finished in Money %? I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%. So shouldn't the best players be able to get there?

I moved up to $109's this week...and in 32 tournies, had an ROI of 60%. In money 54%, with just about even distributuion between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

I know 32 is not a large sample...but I really don't feel like I have been getting exceptionally good cards, or hitting lucky hands. Just playing extremely well. Is this some bizarre winning streak that doesn't even feel like one?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Bizarre" winning streak? No, SNGs have a lot of variance and you'll have a number of good streaks over the short-run. Just like when you get bitch-slapped over a stretch in the near future, it won't be bizarre.

Also, the mind is very good at playing tricks in regards to running good/bad with cards. When running good, you're winning coin flips and all your hands are holding up, seems normal. When you get a few bad beats, those tend to stick in the noggin for a much longer time.

If you still believe that a 50% ITM is sustainable in the 215s...I have a bridge I'd like to sell you for a great price....

[Grivan]

Nope, your right, you obvioiusly are the best SNG player on these boards, and you should be moving up to the 200s ASAP. You are killing the 100s the 200s can't be that much harder.

[rwanger]

Thanks for more sarcasm. I am not the best. Brilliant Observation.

Now someone please tell me why placing in the money 50% of the time is not reasonable? Maybe it's just a figure of speech, but Cloutier makes some claims in his Champsionship No-Limit book that he wins satellites around 1/3 to 1/4 of the time. Is he exxagerating or what?

[viennagreen]

are they 5 person satellites?

[The once and future king]

The sarcasm comes form there beeing one post like this every month. It gets tedious as the process is allways the same.

1. New Poster claims ITM of X with tiny sample size.
2. Vets say ITM isnt sustainable in the long term.
3. New poster dosnt believe them.
4. Boring.

EVERY SNG player that has 1000k+ SNG's will tell you that 50% ITM isnt sustainable. We all know this to be true. When you have played more so will you.

You have played 32 SNGs. It is possible for even the best SNG player to go 10 SNG's without even placing. This dosnt happen very often but it does happen. I have just played 132 tournies and have an ITM of 51%, yet I know this isnt sustaniable because I know that when the cards turn super cold there is nothing you can do about it and winning and or placing will become virtualy impossible.

You cant know about variance untill you have experienced it and to experience it you have to play enough for it to occur. You havnt played enough yet end of story.

[LeVoodoo]

I hate to go slightly off topic, but this seems like such a beloved topic that i sure as heck don't want to start another thread on it. I ask these questions as religious SNG player, I don't succeed well at ring games and only play the odd multi.

This magic number of ~22% ROI, does it take into account the quality of competition? Surely it's easier to win at a 5 or 10 buck table as opposed to a 100 table. Wouldn't this perhaps lead to a higher percentage?

Second and lastly, is playing only SNG tables profitable long term? I'm not talking about making a living, but right now i'm the type of player that's quite happy to be up ~35 bucks a day for a few hours of poker, my average over the month of january. (And yes, in case you're wondering, that's with a ~40% win ratio, quite possibly unsustainable).

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Sidekick]

[ QUOTE ]
This magic number of ~22% ROI, does it take into account the quality of competition? Surely it's easier to win at a 5 or 10 buck table as opposed to a 100 table. Wouldn't this perhaps lead to a higher percentage?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the lower levels a much higher ITM% and ROI are quite sustainable. At the $10 level an ITM of 45%+ and ROI of 30%+ are quite possible over the long run.

The problem is that the competition gets a bit tougher at each level as you move up. So that by the time you reach the $215 level that a ROI of 20% is extremely good.

Pick the best player in the world (doesn't matter who you think it is) and drop him/her into 1000+ SNGs at the $10+$1 tables with half the table being fish and a couple of people that are actually learning and improving. The pro will crush the games easily.

Now, each time you move up a level add 1 more highly skilled player to the 9 or 10 person table at which he plays and reduce the number of players that are going to make stupid plays.

By the time you reach the $215 level you then have 6 highly skilled players at the table and 2-3 more that are very competent players and maybe 1 person that will play stupidly (just because they are rich and feel like seeing some action or whatever). When there is this level of competition it is extremely difficult to finish 1st and 2nd a sufficient percentage of the time in order to sustain a high ROI (25%+).

Hope this answers your question.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%.

[/ QUOTE ]
No sarcasm here - but I think you severely misjudge the huge difference between 33% and 50% ITM.

For every 100 tournaments you'd need to be ITM 17 more times than the "average" player. At the high limits, where the average player is usually very good, that's pretty much impossible over the long term.

I may be wrong on this, but I think a lot of the top high-limit SNG'ers make their ROI by a higher percentage of 1st and 2nd place finishes compared to 3rds. In other words, their ITM might only be a little bit higher than average, but those finishes are disproportionately weighted to 1st and 2nd.

[El Maximo]

When you start asking questions about the sustainability of high ROI at the 109s or 215s, I think you should consider moving down a level or 2. Its not a question of skill but more a question of psychology. You may have trouble enduring the bad streaks that are inevitable. How are you going to feel losing 10, 20, or more buyins in a row at the 109s if you have unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM. I had the same unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM when I was running hot during my first 350 SnGs. Than the next 200 brought me back to reality. The veterans on this site tell it to you straight. If they say something is unsustainable than it is.

[The once and future king]

1. What makes you think 22% is a magic number.

2. 40% is sustainable at lower limits.

3. If you maintian a positive ROI then of course just playing SnGs is profitable in the long term.

[FishBurger]

Here's what happens when you are running good:

You're shortstacked and it's folded around to you in the SB. You have KK and minraise. BB goes allin with AK. You double up and end up winning the tourney. You feel like a genius.

Here's what happens when you're running bad:

You're in the SB with KQs. CO raises to 2.5BB. You correctly interpret this as a steal attempt and move allin. CO flips over Q-10, two tens fall on the flop, CO takes the 2000 pot, and you get knocked out in fifth.

---

Both of these scenarios happened to me in recent respective good and bad runs. I bet if you go back and look at your hands you will see much more of the first scenario and much less of the second. Your current high ROI is probably due to your getting good hands which aren't getting sucked out on.

[rwanger]

To answer the Q above...I'm talking 10 person satelites.

Forgetting odds and data people have collected and whatnot, is 40% in the money sustainable? And if it is, could you imagine having placed in the money ONCE more in your previous 20 tournaments (you would just have to have played 1 hand differently). Then you'd be up to 45%.

And don't anyone give the example of that 1 more in 20 taking you all the way up to 100% in the money, I already thought of that.

[Grivan]

The problem is even if you play a SNG perfectly you are not required to cash. At the higher levels you might have 4 people at the table who are able to play a very near perfect SNG, and 6 people who are just slightly worse.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And if it is, could you imagine having placed in the money ONCE more in your previous 20 tournaments (you would just have to have played 1 hand differently). Then you'd be up to 45%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's like saying batting .300 in baseball should be easy. Over the course of an entire season, the difference between a .300 and .270 hitter is something like 15 hits. That's about 1 extra hit every 2 weeks. Doesn't sound like much, but why can some guys do it every year while others can't? Any scrub hitter can bat .300 for a week or even a month but only the best can do it all year, every year.

I think the problem with your argument is that you are discounting the abilites of the other players at the table. At the highest levels most of the players are very good and cashing an extra 1 in 20 is a lot easier said than done.

[Voltron87]

I went through a streak like yours last week at the 33s. I was absolutely spittting hot fire. I was playing great, and hand no bad beats at bad times. When I finally came off it, I realized that I had gotten really lucky. Not in that I was pushing with 55 and busting AA, or winning races while I was dominated, but because I was winning a lot of races where I had a small advantage. Example: I would get to 3 way play as the big stack, and put someone all in with A5. They would call with KQ, and I was winning those races a disproportionate amount of the time (and a lot of the time these were for 5-6000 chips) and I would win the tournament easily after that. Was I getting my money in with the best hand? Yes. Was I getting lucky? Yes, because my small advantages were holding up in this big pots.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what happens when you are running good:

You're shortstacked and it's folded around to you in the SB. You have KK and minraise. BB goes allin with AK. You double up and end up winning the tourney. You feel like a genius.

Here's what happens when you're running bad:

You're in the SB with KQs. CO raises to 2.5BB. You correctly interpret this as a steal attempt and move allin. CO flips over Q-10, two tens fall on the flop, CO takes the 2000 pot, and you get knocked out in fifth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so true, and it's the beauty of poker. People get a little lucky and chalk it up to skill. People play poorly and chalk it up to bad luck.

For the good players, it makes for nice, consistent bleeding of the bad players. For poor players, it provides the perfect excuse and the incentive to keep coming back while losing money to the sharks slowly over the long run.

My old roomate was a horrible player. We used to run small, friendly live games with 6 people, and after about 20 of these games, my roomate had yet to win any money. None of us were very good, it's just that he was absolutely abysmal. He was just about to quit playing, as he had finally recognized that he was a loser. I recommended a couple sklansky books to him, explained position, and told him that he really has to start folding hands like 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif preflop, even if they are sooted. Anyway, contrairy to my advice, he purchased the book "Poker For Dummies", which truly isn't good for anything but a laugh (they even have a section of what snacks you should bring if your friend is hosting a home game - no shite). The next poker night, he proceeded to have the most fortunate luck I've ever seen. He got quads 3 times, caught to many boats to count, and whenever someone had a legitamite hand, he'd always have them beat. Anyway, that night was enough to keep him coming back for more punishment, convinced that all his subsequent losses were due to bad luck, and not flawed play.

Anyway, I'm certainly not comparing you to such a neophite as the guy I was just describing. All I'm saying is don't let a run of good luck make you think that you're better than you really are. Play 1000 SNGs at $200, and if you're still anywhere near 50% ROI, write a book cause I'd buy it in a second!

ss

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

2. 40% is sustainable at lower limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

It may be (though only at the $10s, I'd guess), but I've never heard of anyone with this ROI and a big enough sample size at this level. "Well, of course not", you say, "people who are soundly beating the low limits tend to move up quickly." Yes, but the fact remains that since none of them stuck around at the $10s/$20s long enough, their ROIs are suspect.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read some of the threads about ROI...and I found it hard to believe that the best player at Party $215's is only making $36 profit per tourney. What do you think is a reasonable Finished in Money %? I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%. So shouldn't the best players be able to get there?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about Party, the average ITM is 30%, not 33%.

[rwanger]

Oops. It is 30%. My bad.

I understand what you mean about winning the hands you are supposed to win, and that not seeming like "good luck". It does seem to me though, that even at the $109's, you can play fairly tight, and really only need to double up once to have a very reasonable shot at the money. I'm not talking about a AK vs QQ situation either, as you can often get something much better.

Am I wrong to think that you can usually avoid risking your whole stack (except in very favorable situations) until there are only 5 or so players left?

[The once and future king]

40% ITM.

[Grivan]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I wrong to think that you can usually avoid risking your whole stack (except in very favorable situations) until there are only 5 or so players left?

[/ QUOTE ]

How favorable of a situation are we talking about? 60/40? Okay, you win that 60% of the time now you probably have 1500 chips (it takes awhile to get into this situations and blinds eat you). Now 10% of the time you are not able to get into this situation at all with a meanful chip size assume. Now to get to your 40% in the money you need to money just about EVERY time you double up early, which just isn't going to happen. It generally takes winning 2 good pots to get into the money, or having a bunch of steals succed.

[Benholio]

Just think about it a little bit. You are coming to a forum full of posters who play anywhere from 50 to 1000 sngs a WEEK. The active posters of this forum have probably amassed over a million recorded sngs at various levels. We aren't guessing, or using hunches or random theories to come up with these numbers.

The best thing you can do as a new sng player visiting this forum, is to be a sponge for a few weeks.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
40% ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Yes, I agree...I think 40% ITM is sustainable at the $10s and $20s at the very least.