Given the rake... can SNGs be beaten?

[AnyTwoCanLose]

There's been lots of talk about what kind of win rate is possible.

The rake in a SNG is 10%. Does that mean that 40% success rate is necessary to finish ahead?

Is 40% realistic?

Is the rake better elsewhere?

Am I missing something?

[lorinda]

You would need to finish in the money 30% of the time with a level spread without the rake.

The rake ups that by 10% to 33%.

Lori

[SuitedSixes]

Yes, you are missing something. SNGs can be beaten.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

Why is it 33?

I can follow simple math... I just can't do it.

(I probably don't belong here)

[citanul]

For instance, if you place in the money 30% of the time, and every time, you get a 1st place, you would have, over a 10 game span, an expectation of the following:

10 buyins -> 10x$11 -> $110
3 firsts -> 3x$50 -> $150
Net -> $150-$110 -> $40

so yeah, sngs can, in theory be beaten. i dunno though, i'm pretty skeptical.

citanul

[teamdonkey]

again assuming the even spread:

if your buy in is $1 + $0.10, and your average win yields $3 (the average of $5, $3, and $2), what percentage of the time do you need to win to get your $1.10 back?

1.1 = x * 3
x = .367

you need to place 37% of the time.

SNG's are definately beatable, im not sure that the hourly expectation from them is better than what the same player could do at the cash tables though.

[theredpill5]

It's wierd but I seem to be making more money in SNG's at the moment.

I play $30 buy-in 5-player SNG's
and some $10 buy-in 5-player SNG's

I just had my first $230 day. I've never made that much playing cash games all day at the .25/.50 NL games.

Woops, forgot I played a MTT.

[Mr_J]

"you need to place 37% of the time."

Assuming they are equal (for 1st, 2nd and 3rd), then the breakeven placing % is 33%.

11% *3.9
11% *1.9
11% *0.9
67% *-1.1

Also, $109 and above, the breakeven % is lower.

[Mr_J]

"and your average win yields $3"

BTW, it's meant to be $3.33

[teamdonkey]

i think we may be comparing different tables... i play on Stars where a full table is 9. Is 10 the standard size for SNG's on other sites, or am i really missing something?

[eastbay]

The bottom line is that yes, SnGs can definitely be beaten beyond the rake for a worthwhile profit.

eastbay

[Mr_J]

"Is 10 the standard size for SNG's on other sites,"

Yeh sorry. Most guys here play at party & skins (10 players).

[theredpill5]

How come the question is being asked ? If it weren't possible to be beaten, would whole forums be created for SNG's ? YOu mean is the winrate sustainable over say 5 years ? I heard that guy went on a 50 SNG winless streak. I think I might have quit after loss number 20.

[raptor517]

some people play more in one week than others do in a full year /images/graemlins/wink.gif and yes, to whoever asked this silly question, there are quite a few people making a VERY solid, and by that i mean 6 figure, income strictly from sngs.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
some people play more in one week than others do in a full year /images/graemlins/wink.gif and yes, to whoever asked this silly question, there are quite a few people making a VERY solid, and by that i mean 6 figure, income strictly from sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And others making solid 6 figure incomes strictly from Rakeback /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[Scuba Chuck]

Citanul: Sub post for FAQ?

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
If it weren't possible to be beaten, would whole forums be created for SNG's ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Whole forums have been created for losing games. Eg. trying to beat blackjack with progressive betting sequences and the likes.

[citanul]

I don't think this rates, honestly.

Scuba: If you haven't gotten a PM from me by tonight, PM me agaain.

citanul

[pokerswami]

[ QUOTE ]
How come the question is being asked ? If it weren't possible to be beaten, would whole forums be created for SNG's ?

[/ QUOTE ]

A whole world-wide industry has arisen around visitors from other planets.

Forums exist devoted to the worship of one or more gods. Forums exist devoted to atheism. They can't both be correct.

Most of the world used to believe the world was flat - some still do. I mean it - not the goofballs but some genuinely undereducated 3rd world unfortunates.

While modern advertising may hold that "perception is reality", I hope that any 2+2 poker player would know that just because someone or many someones believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How come the question is being asked ? If it weren't possible to be beaten, would whole forums be created for SNG's ?

[/ QUOTE ]

A whole world-wide industry has arisen around visitors from other planets.

Forums exist devoted to the worship of one or more gods. Forums exist devoted to atheism. They can't both be correct.

Most of the world used to believe the world was flat - some still do. I mean it - not the goofballs but some genuinely undereducated 3rd world unfortunates.

While modern advertising may hold that "perception is reality", I hope that any 2+2 poker player would know that just because someone or many someones believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is, those topics aren't easily quantifiable. 1000's of SNG's are played and recorded every day, so it is very easy to determine if they can be beaten.

While I admit seeing a forum with 1000's of posts about SNG's wouldn't necessarily make it 100% clear that they are profitable, but reading a handful of those posts from the front page should be sufficient.

[microbet]

I'm not saying the game is not beatable. To me, the best evidence for this is the play that I see in the games.

But, a forum full of winners could provide an illusion that the game is beatable. Losers tend to quit. Winners are more likely to post.

If the variance were high enough and there were enough players, the biggest long term winner could just be the biggest anomoly.

[Slim Pickens]

So if we hypothesize, in some sort of hypothetical, theoretical world that dosen't actually exist where no one's skill changes over time and we "know" a finish distribution "exactly," that we have an infinite supply of a certain type of player, we can calculate what might happen if no one were actually a winner at this game. These players get exactly 11% first, 11% second, and 11% third for an ROI of 0%.

After 100 tournaments, 27% will have an observed ROI above 10%. 11% will observe an ROI over 20%.

After 500 tournaments, 8% will observe an ROI over 10%. 0.3% will observe an ROI over 20%.

After 2k tournaments, 3 in a thousand will see an ROI over 10%. Less than one in twenty five thousand will observe an ROI over 13%.

Slim

[Degen]

nope, they can't be beaten... there is a glitch in PP and its paid my rent for the last six months, and all of my bills

Degen

[lorinda]

Hi again,

I can't believe this thread is still going.

People beat ring games with approx 3% rake per hand and you're wondering if people can beat SNGs with approx 0.1% rake per hand.

Have a guess.

Lori

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

People beat ring games with approx 3% rake per hand and you're wondering if people can beat SNGs with approx 0.1% rake per hand.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Always cutting to the chase. Nice post.

eastbay