This is what makes SNGs profitable [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

gumpzilla

03-19-2005, 02:16 PM

So they advocate playing within a somewhat thin bankroll and lay out a system for how to parlay winnings in small stake SnGs into larger ones. Note that if you finish OTM, they suggest you go back to their original bankroll suggestions, meaning you're barely ever playing outside of your comfort zone. They're preaching a form of bankroll management, which while not ideal, perhaps, is certainly one step in the right direction. Marginally silly, I suppose, but there are tons of fishier things out there.

eastbay

03-19-2005, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So they advocate playing within a somewhat thin bankroll and lay out a system for how to parlay winnings in small stake SnGs into larger ones. Note that if you finish OTM, they suggest you go back to their original bankroll suggestions, meaning you're barely ever playing outside of your comfort zone. They're preaching a form of bankroll management, which while not ideal, perhaps, is certainly one step in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think it's horrible.

The reason is that the "parlaying" strategy risks the most money in the games in which you are mostly likely to be a loser, erasing any profits built from the games where you actually have an edge.

It's sort of a Peter Principle for poker. This is not bankroll management. This is systematic self-destruction.

eastbay

J-Lo

03-19-2005, 03:01 PM

I think their "strategy" is a form of the Step tourneys at party. And all the steps do is funnel money from the small stakes players to the big time sharks. It's like comunism, it looks good on paper, but will never work in terms of practicality.

gumpzilla

03-19-2005, 03:03 PM

I see what you're saying, but that argument seems to assume a sucky SNG player. Not a bad assumption, but any advice to that player that contains as a key component "play SNGs" is going to be bad for them and so I'm not that interested in that situation.

Consider a situation where a player had 20% ROI at $5, 15% at $10, for example. This person is giving up some edge to take a shot at $10s but is going to have a better hourly rate playing that game, obviously. So getting to $10 is clearly beneficial for that player. Playing a $10 will have a higher EV than playing a $5. The risk of ruin is obviously higher, though, if the player has a bankroll of $120. I don't see the system being that bad in this case.
Sure, this player might lose at the $20s and $30s, but he's going to have to keep cashing to get there, which seems rather improbable. And if he wins along the way, then he's not completely eradicating his profits even if he's got a -100% ROI at the next level. In such a case, he's clearly burning money by moving up, but that's not a realistic scenario.

eastbay

03-19-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying, but that argument seems to assume a sucky SNG player. Not a bad assumption, but any advice to that player that contains as a key component "play SNGs" is going to be bad for them and so I'm not that interested in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The issue is not "sucky" but "has a ceiling for their edge." Those are not the same. Most potentially winning players fall in category 2.

I didn't study the system in detail but what I did see was advocating jumping straight to $200 if you win a $50. That' s just suicide for the vast majority of people who would be thinking they need something like this in the first place.

That's more credible as a guerilla campaign to soften up the 200's than anything else.

eastbay

gumpzilla

03-19-2005, 03:13 PM

Yes, that does seem kind of extreme. I'll admit I was mostly interested in the low-level implications of this. The ROI drops moving from $5 to $10 to $20 are pretty modest for most people, I think, and so this isn't nearly as bad down there.

ZebraAss

03-19-2005, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
***Whilst you should make more money playing Limit Hold'em Ring Games, SnG's are great for those days when your running bad in the cash games or you just need a break from your normal ring games. I would suggest you keep your cash game Bank Roll and SnG Bank Roll separte. The Best way to do this, is to keep ONE poker site for Cash Games and One poker site for SnG's. There are many sites out there you can play SnG's on. For Loose SnG action we recommend either Pacific Poker or Empire Poker, both sites have a wide range of SnG's making it easy to find a game without a huge wait and are fairly easy to beat***

[/ QUOTE ]

...this whole thing is a joke.

pokerlaw

03-19-2005, 04:48 PM

Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win. This stategy advocates continuously placing more money on the games in which worse cards can be expected.

A few months ago, I was tossing around an idea for an opposite strategy...something like:

1) Play a $5: If you win, play another. If you lose, play a $5 w 2 or 3 tables - as the average payout compensates you for your loss in both tournaments. If you win the MT, go back to a $5. If you lose the multitable, play a $10.

The basic goal would be to always ensure that the next tournament played would compensate you for your losses thus far. Assuming you are playing solid the whole time, eventually you should get the cards and place.

I haven't pushed the strategy all that much, but after losing 3-4 $5s, I do play $20s occasionally and do manage to get some "lucky" cards.

eastbay

03-19-2005, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

pokerlaw

03-19-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me explain my train of thought a little more clearly...maybe I am still wrong, but:

Especially in a Party sit and go - higher blinds over time - but applicable to all S&Gs (more so w one tables) that I have observed a lot of situations in which a player finishs ITM or OTM turn on pre-flop all ins in which 60/40, 55/45 or the like is the final chance taken.

If you lost the last 4 "coin-flip" situations you played in, one would expect to get a win eventually. So after winning - especially if the tournament involved sucked out a 80/20 favorites, you could expect to lose the next one, hence you shouldn't move up a level.

While variace, skill level of players at your table, avoiding all-in coinflip plays by stealing blinds and acquiring chip leads, and many other factors don't guarantee the assumption I am making to be true, it sort of goes to my "gut" feeling I guess is what I was saying. Regardless, that proposed system sucked.

eastbay

03-19-2005, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me explain my train of thought a little more clearly...maybe I am still wrong, but:

Especially in a Party sit and go - higher blinds over time - but applicable to all S&Gs (more so w one tables) that I have observed a lot of situations in which a player finishs ITM or OTM turn on pre-flop all ins in which 60/40, 55/45 or the like is the final chance taken.

If you lost the last 4 "coin-flip" situations you played in, one would expect to get a win eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the old coin flip trick question and you're getting it wrong. That question is "you flip 4 heads in a row. What is probability that you flip heads on the next toss?"

You're saying tails is more likely. It isn't. It's 50/50 whether you flipped 1, 5, or 50 heads in a row previously.

As for the system: we agree it's crap.

eastbay

microbet

03-19-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is the old coin flip trick question and you're getting it wrong. That question is "you flip 4 heads in a row. What is probability that you flip heads on the next toss?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the old mutual fund trick question. A fund outperforms the market for 10 years. What is the probability that it will outperform the market next year? - 50/50.

eastbay

03-19-2005, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the old coin flip trick question and you're getting it wrong. That question is "you flip 4 heads in a row. What is probability that you flip heads on the next toss?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the old mutual fund trick question. A fund outperforms the market for 10 years. What is the probability that it will outperform the market next year? - 50/50.

[/ QUOTE ]

That one's a little muddier, but it wouldn't surprise me if the statistics bore it out.

eastbay

Apathy

03-19-2005, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the old coin flip trick question and you're getting it wrong. That question is "you flip 4 heads in a row. What is probability that you flip heads on the next toss?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the old mutual fund trick question. A fund outperforms the market for 10 years. What is the probability that it will outperform the market next year? - 50/50.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya...If your find manager throws darts at a newspaper to pick stocks.

microbet

03-19-2005, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ya...If your find manager throws darts at a newspaper to pick stocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be silly. The fund managers don't do that. That's what the monkeys are for.

dfscott

03-19-2005, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that does seem kind of extreme. I'll admit I was mostly interested in the low-level implications of this. The ROI drops moving from $5 to $10 to $20 are pretty modest for most people, I think, and so this isn't nearly as bad down there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding right? Maybe I'm atypical, but:

11s: ITM 39.9% ROI 12%
22s: ITM 25% ROI -30%

Of course, this is probably because I'm a beginner, but beginners are exactly the people that are going to be following this strategy.

microbet

03-19-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
11s: ITM 39.9% ROI 12%
22s: ITM 25% ROI -30%

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be _______ if those numbers are based on more than ______ games at each buyin.

a little surprised - 50
surprised - 100
shocked - 200
skeptical - 300
incredulous - 400

dfscott

03-20-2005, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
11s: ITM 39.9% ROI 12%
22s: ITM 25% ROI -30%

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be _______ if those numbers are based on more than ______ games at each buyin.

a little surprised - 50
surprised - 100
shocked - 200
skeptical - 300
incredulous - 400

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider yourself shocked and a little surprised (for the 11s and 22s, respectively.

EarlCat

03-20-2005, 02:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The basic goal would be to always ensure that the next tournament played would compensate you for your losses thus far.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like the idea of doubling your bet each time you lose at the roulette wheel. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

EarlCat

03-20-2005, 02:57 AM

...

microbet

03-20-2005, 01:00 PM

In that case I'm just a little surprised. I'm sure you are not a -30% player in the $22s. That said, and I'm sure you know this, your numbers in the $11s haven't been that great. Of course, between 200-300 sngs you could still just be running bad.

Alex/Mugaaz

03-20-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they can.

Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands.

If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again.

However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money.

J-Lo

03-20-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they can.

Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands.

If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again.

However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

U cannot use conditional probability when speaking of a group of hands/SNG's/Tourneys. Each hand/SNG/Tourney is independent of the last. Easybay has given up on you guys, because he has argued with nonsense and figured out some people are stuborn in their ways.

Alex/Mugaaz

03-20-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they can.

Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands.

If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again.

However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

U cannot use conditional probability when speaking of a group of hands/SNG's/Tourneys. Each hand/SNG/Tourney is independent of the last. Easybay has given up on you guys, because he has argued with nonsense and figured out some people are stuborn in their ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?

If you rolled a 1000 sided dice and get 500. The next time you roll it you have a 50% chance of rolling higher than before.
If you roll a 700. You have a 30% chance of rolling higher than before.

If the average SNG winner rolled a 700. 699/1000 times he will not roll higher.

Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results.

I don't know or care what the average roll for a SNG winner is. I'm not arguing it.

Cheeseweasel

03-20-2005, 02:34 PM

Initialize the betting progression at 0. For each win, loss, or tie, reduce the bet by 1. Works with roulette, craps, SNG's, ad infinitum.

EarlCat

03-20-2005, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you noticed in casinos now how they've stared putting those scoreboards above the roulette wheels that show the past 10 or so spins? Roulette revenues are through the roof because of these things. The dumb masses look at the board and say, "Wow, the last 5 spins were red so it's long overdue to be black. I mean what are the odds of six reds in a row? Slim to none I'd say. Here's 5x my normal bet on black." And then they vote.

Alex/Mugaaz

03-20-2005, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you noticed in casinos now how they've stared putting those scoreboards above the roulette wheels that show the past 10 or so spins? Roulette revenues are through the roof because of these things. The dumb masses look at the board and say, "Wow, the last 5 spins were red so it's long overdue to be black. I mean what are the odds of six reds in a row? Slim to none I'd say. Here's 5x my normal bet on black." And then they vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this man. I'm not arguing for this misconception.
Why does everyone think this is the same?
You guys are making the mistake of thinking that becuase a specific hand is just as likely the next time the cards are dealt, then getting it again is a 50/50 shot. It isn't.

If getting a specific hand happened 1 in 25 times. Then if you got it once you don't have a 50/50 shot of getting it again.

If you got athe 2nd best out of 25hands. Then the chance of you doing the same or BETTER than before is 1/25, and worse would be 24/25. If you got the 10th best hand, then the chance of you doing the same or BETTER is 10/25, and worse would be 15/25.