$10 SNG twice or once?

[Djangopoker]

I'll apologise now if this has already been covered but:

With all things being equal, and myself being a little better than average, what has better profit probabilities between the 2:

1) 2 $10 1 table SNG's a night, or
2) 1 $10 2 table SNG

Obviously it costs more to pay 10 bucks twice but I only have to beat 8 people twice whereas the 2 table is cheaper but I have to beat 17...

Any thoughts?

[microbet]

Interesting. Just generally, higher ROI in SNG or multis? How about $/hr? Seems like it would depend on blind structure and the population of players. Variance should be higher in the multis.

I quit playing the multis because they took too long.

[eastbay]

There is no single answer because they require different skills. The only answer is: whichever makes you more money.

For me, I'm pretty sure I make significantly more ($/hr) playing the single tables due to the games/hr effect, which overshadows any increased ROI per game for doubles.

Maybe someone who had the two-table structure nailed would go the other way.

eastbay

[rachelwxm]

I don't think 2 table SNG would have a higher hourly rate but the variance is much higher too. I used to play there alot and now I only play there if I have too much time and running badly.

[protoverus]

A slight variation...

I play the 3 table SNG's and find them much easier to beat than the 1's. So, my ROI on the 3-tables is higher, but in terms of $/hr, I definately make less. They take about twice as long to play, but they are also harder to get started (ie. You can't generally fire up 4 at a time).

If you are only playing 1 a night the 2-3 tables are better imho. If you play the normal tight game for the first hour, you will almost certaintly find yourself at the final table with a bigger than average/average stack..and you're back to normal SNG mode. You have more time to be patient before bubble play.

Be well.

[Djangopoker]

Thanx for the thoughts.

I am looking to play either 2 singles or 1 double a night. So money per hour isn't too crucial. I'm more looking to make 70-80 bucks a night-in my perfect dream world, of course, through SNG's.
Is anyone else of the opinion that winning 1 2-table is easier than winning 2 1 table's?

And, yes, I know that it is impossible to win every night, or half the nights for that matter. I'm thinking long term. If I could only do one or the other for the rest of my life, which would be statistically more profitable...

Thanx for reading, I'd love to hear more thoughts.

[rachelwxm]

are you playing at party 3table? Interesting to get your perspective on that.

[AleoMagus]

The answer to this is almost certainly the two single table tourneys (so long as you are a winning player).

The reason for this just that I can see no real reason why anyone could expect double the ROI playing 2 table SNGs than they could expect at 1 table SNGs.

So, assuming that you don't get double profit at the 2 table SNGs, you get twice as much play in with the single tables. The 'I' in ROI is investment, after all, and x% means twice as much if you invest twice as much. Add to this the fact that these two scenarios each take about the same amount of time to complete and it's a no-brainer.

What's interesting to note here also is that your variance will also be much smaller playing the single table tourneys - despite wagering twice as much each evening.

Regards
Brad S

[dt133]

Firstly, you ARE dreaming if you expect to make $80 bucks a night playing only two SNGs.

Personally, I have tried both, and single tables have been far more profitable. The reason is that the pay structure is not worth the time; consider that if you make 1st in a 2 table, you only get 60% more ($80 vs. $50) payout. Is this worth more than twice the time? The increased variance that goes along with MTT doesn't justify this.

I think that some people who play weak tight do better at the 2 tables because the blinds increase by time and not by # of hands. Thus you get much more time to be patient and wait for good cards. But I think this is not a profitable strategy overall, and that single tables offer much higher ROI if you play them well.

[jccookjr]

I prefer the two-table over the one-table for a couple of reasons. You start with T$1000 instead of T$800 which gives you a little wiggle room. And usually in a one-table there are one or two maniacs going all-in the first couple of hands giving one or two guys a huge head start. You have more time to make up ground.

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
And usually in a one-table there are one or two maniacs going all-in the first couple of hands giving one or two guys a huge head start. You have more time to make up ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have problem with that?

[codewarrior]

Firstly - what Aleo and dt133 said, except substitute "tight" for "weak/tight" in dt's response. Weak/tight only wins if you get pocket monsters constantly - in the long run they lose.

Second, if you really want to gain experience in the slow/fast/slow/fast structure of a multi in a compressed amount of time, go for the 2-table option - more bang for your buck if profit isn't an issue, but future profits from gained experience is a goal. That said, I like to play them on Sunday afternoons (and 2+2 night, of course).

Aleo is correct, of course, regarding ROI on the 1 v. 2-table games.

Just a thought - why not play 1 20+2 instead of 2 10+1 during the weekdays (or 1 20 once or twice a week), play a few 10+1 on Friday nights, and then a couple 2-tables on Sunday afternoon? Just a thought. This gives you a nice cross section of the kind of players out there, within a couple of different structures. Variety, experience, and good times. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Djangopoker]

First off, thanx for all your responses. I greatly appreciate advice.

Aleo, a question:

For the 2 singles, I am risking $20 to make $90 ($45 each for the win) for a profit of $70.Whereas in the 1 table I am risking $10 to make $72 for a profit of $62. Is that what you mean by the ROI? I can see how that make sense but am wondering about the factors of having to beat 8 people twice versus 17 people once.

Actually, now that I've typed that out, it seems to make more sense...With the 2 singles I have to beat less people overall for a higher potential profit, interesting that there are different opinions though.

I am playing on Full Tilt and, obviously, am not planning on winning every night (even though a man can dream, albeit dangerously,lol). This was just posed as a question of, over time, which has a better chance of overall profit.

But maybe we answered it?

Thanx!