What's the typical ROI drop from $30 to $50? Please help answer.

[Bigwig]

I'm very curious to see the consensus here. Since I switched to Party I've been beating up the $30's while 3 tabling to a tune of 44% ROI. Now, I know that's unsustainable, but it is 300 SNG's, which is decent sample. And I'd been maintaining 25% on Stars at $30. But I'm convinced that my game is much more suited to Party's structure.

So, what kind of ROI drop have you typically seen by making this small but I think significant jump to $50? Thanks in advance.

[Bigwig]

Uh, help?

[eastbay]

Just move up. It won't be nearly enough to drop your earn rate, although it may take a little adjustment for the 1000 starting stack before you find your rhythm at $55.

eastbay

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Just move up. It won't be nearly enough to drop your earn rate, although it may take a little adjustment for the 1000 starting stack before you find your rhythm at $55.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was going to start a different thread about that starting chip stack thing.

Thanks for the reply.

[Scuba Chuck]

Bigwig, I don't think the biggest difference you'll be concerned about when moving to the $55s is the ROI difference, which I doubt is significant at all. What will be significant is your variance.

[applejuicekid]

Why is this? Is it because of better play or is it just the way the $50 games are played?

[Scuba Chuck]

I should amend my comment slightly. Bankroll variance.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I should amend my comment slightly. Bankroll variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankroll is sitting at about $1900. That's plenty, no?

[Scuba Chuck]

I'd say you're fine. The most important part of Bankroll management is to follow the bottom side. Specifically, if you fall below the threshold to move down, MOVE DOWN. IMO, on the upside, do what you want.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I should amend my comment slightly. Bankroll variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly? What you posted earlier is just plain wrong!

But since you amended your comment I now understand what your point is.

And I agree.

Umm....so this post is most likely useless.

Okay, I'm going to end this post now.

Yugoslav
(Ending......)

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Slightly? What you posted earlier is just plain wrong!

But since you amended your comment I now understand what your point is.

And I agree.

Umm....so this post is most likely useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you could see that my comment wasn't slightly off, but it was slightly missing a word...

I'm thick, leab me alonb. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Irieguy]

My ROI is 6% lower at the $55's than at the $33's with over 500 at each level. There's very little statistical confidence in that figure, but FWIW, it seems about right.

But don't expect your ROI to be 38% at the $55's. It won't be. (At least not for very long)

Irieguy

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
But don't expect your ROI to be 38% at the $55's. It won't be

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here 100% if you're 4+ tabling. Do you think this is true if you just play 1 table at a time?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't expect your ROI to be 38% at the $55's. It won't be

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here 100% if you're 4+ tabling. Do you think this is true if you just play 1 table at a time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with Irie's statement and I don't even have statistics to back it up. The problem is that you will never *know* statistically whether it is true or not due to insufficient sample sizes. So, the OP question can only really be answered by use of a 'perceived' skill difference between the two levels and a theoretical game theory perspective.

For instance, take whatever you think you're current ROI is 4 tabling in the 33s, Scuba. I bet as is, your ROI would be lower 1 tabling the 55s. Now, what you could *acheive* in the 55s 1 tabling could be close to or even higher than what you're beating the 33s for currently but it's not as simple as merely 'adjusting to increased stacks.' There is are subtle and not so subtle differences. I don't pretend to have nearly enough of a firm grasp and/or ability to apply them to say I could play 1 $55 table as well as I play 4 $33 tables.

Yugoslav
Mee two cen speel goot.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't expect your ROI to be 38% at the $55's. It won't be

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here 100% if you're 4+ tabling. Do you think this is true if you just play 1 table at a time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the luckiest player running at any particular level is always going to be able to post their absurd numbers, and this forum is riddled with such posts. So, a biased impression of what's possible develops and turns into a kind of folklore.

Nobody really knows what a reasonable ROI at a given level is. But, if I had to guess I would look at players who have accumulated over 1000 SNGs.

So, who has disclosed their numbers after a significant number of trials? Eastbay and Lacky, off the top of my head. I have around 600 at the $55 level. I think Eastbay was playing 1-3 tables, and Lacky and I were playing 4-8 tables. I think Eastbay's ROI was close to 30%, but everybody else's I've seen has been closer to 20%.

Bottom line: your ROI will drop when you move up. Your ROI will drop when you add tables. A 20% ROI is probably pretty good at the $55's, and 30% is probably possible for the very best. It's impossible to be very precise or confident with these numbers for all of the reasons so commonly discussed on this forum.

Irieguy

[Bigwig]

20% would be just fine as far as I'm concerned. That translates to about $50+ an hour. Perfectly fine.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't expect your ROI to be 38% at the $55's. It won't be

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here 100% if you're 4+ tabling. Do you think this is true if you just play 1 table at a time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you want to move up to $55s and play one table at at time? Why not multi $22s or $33s to make more money and be less bored?

[byronkincaid]

1000 $55s (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1275860&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

It's depressing that I'm down in the $20s now for at least a month probably more. I had thought money management was one of my strong points.