Should SNG newbies skip the 5+1's ?

[Blarg]

I just started playing SNG's in any quantity at the beginning of this month. I read through Aleomagus's guide, rewrote it in my own words several times to try to incorporate it better into my brain and play style, and am reading these forums to try to learn to play them better. But I'm still a raw newbie and want to learn cheaply, if possible.

Normally I would take it for granted that you want to risk as little as possible when learning a new poker game, but the rake at Party 5+1's is the same as the 10+1's, making it effectively twice as costly in tourney fees.

So I'm wondering if it isn't -EV to learn to play SNG's on the 5+1's just because of the high hit you take from those fees compared to the 10+1's. I know it's probably impossible to say for sure whether I'll come out ahead playing the next step up instead of the lower one, but what would you recommend the average person do?

In case it might help to judge my question any better, here's some info on my SNG play. I've played 128 SNG's since the beginning of this month, and I'm about 70 bucks behind, including half a dozen 10_1's. I'm just beginning SNG's though, and my numbers are small, so I don't think those numbers provide a complete diagnosis of my play. Especially since I seem to have learned a lot in this past week or so and am already playing much better.

But what would you guys advise?

[cow_phunk]

if you're not comfortable moving up, find a site w/ 5 + .5 tables. there's no point paying a 20% rake.

[splashpot]

I say if you have the bankroll for 10+1, go for it. They're close, if not the same difficulty as the 5+1s.

[Scuba Chuck]

Blarg, what other forum section are you coming from? You have 2,000+ posts.

Next, if you were just playing your first few games EVER, I would recommend playing the play money games until you got used to it. If you can place in the top 4 in the play money 60-80% of the time, I'm pretty sure you're ready for the real money. In fact, if you can place (1-3) 50% of the time with play money, you're probably ready for real money.

Now that you are where you are, there's two answers to your questions:

1) Play the $5+1s. You'll lose less while you learn. You'll also win less as the vig is 20%. Recognize that you aren't going to build a bankroll here. Accept that you are giving away money (most likely), but treading water or slightly gaining money, bankroll wise, is a sign that you are probably capable of moving to the $10+1s.

It has generally been a recommendation to not play the $5+1s on this forum. AleoMagus recently suggested otherwise. See thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2111612&page=6&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=2#Post2119018)

2) Play the $10+1s. Skip the lower levels. Start with a bigger bankroll. There is a big difference between play money and real money, REAL MONEY. But yet again, the fish play with $11 the same way they do for $0. At least on the $10+1s, you'll know that you're a winning player by watching your bankroll rise.

Being a newbie has it's growing pains. Particularly in the bankroll area.

Scuba

[BradleyT]

What's your BR?

[GtrHtr]

Consider playing on UB or PS. Both have a 10% rake for the lower limit SnGs although the competition is (seems) tougher. Play the UB 5.50's for a month or 2 at your current pace and your SnG game will improve dramatically.

[McBandit]

You are right that the rake at the $5s is steep, but they are not -EV if you play well. I sometimes drop down to the 5s when I have a bad stretch in the 20s and 30s just to regroup mentally. They 5s can definately be beaten for money, I was getting a 40% return on investment even with the heavy rake. Thhe players are definately the softest lineup you can find in the party SNGs, but they are only a little bit worse than the 10+1 players. I think it would be a good place to work on your game if you are learning and/or have a small bankroll. A bad run at the $5+1s costs only like $50-100 bucks which is gentle on a small bankroll. If bankroll size is not an issue, I would go straight to the 10+1s (you should have $300-400 to start...if you lose that you are likely making fundamental mistakes).

Good luck,
Mcbandit

[Scuba Chuck]

Recognize that PS and UB is a different game than party's due to the difference in starting stacks. That's been the real drawback to starting there. There's more "game" to learn.

[allintuit]

That's why I like Paradise.

[GtrHtr]

I think we agree to a point. Part of my reply was concerning his desire to become "better" at SnG's. I think the competition and the structure at both PS and UB will do that.

[curtains]

I don't think players should skip the $5+1s, assuming you aren't playing for the money when you first start out.

[GtrHtr]

Agreed.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Blarg, what other forum section are you coming from? You have 2,000+ posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Blarg is another one like me -- a defector from the limit forums...

[greatmage]

I have been playing the 2+.20 and the 8+.80 on pacific. They are 20 person SnG but they are good for low BR

[Blarg]

That's mostly OOT posting, Scuba, along with some Micro and Small Stakes posting. But I've been gone for a few months.

Thanks for the link, and the two schools of thought you pointed out.

I don't mind my bankroll not growing while I learn, but I've never been a fan of losing more than I have to, either. I'm pretty close to break even on the 5+1's, even though I went through two gruesome spurts where I kept getting pounded and outdrawn and losing huge chip leads ITM or getting busted out on the bubble; most of my $70 loss is from the half dozen 10+1's I played. I kind of feel I'll be holding my own in the 5+1's fairly soon, and don't feel nearly as unnerved by all the pushing when it's down to two or three people anymore, and even do a pretty fair amount of it myself. I can't argue that I'm even a break even player, though, until I at least break even! I think I'll probably be closing in on that shortly.

I was just thinking that when I get to the break-even stage, the extra tourney fees on the 5+1 will make it harder to get beyond it, and in the meantime will make it harder to reach the break-even stage, too.

I think I'm kind of tending toward the "stay in the 5+1's until you've proven you can kick the crap out of them" outlook.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your BR?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have thousands in my bankroll, but I can't really afford to throw money around without care. I mean, I have thousands to use, but not thousands to waste. I don't want to waste any of it.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider playing on UB or PS. Both have a 10% rake for the lower limit SnGs although the competition is (seems) tougher. Play the UB 5.50's for a month or 2 at your current pace and your SnG game will improve dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a Pokerstars account.

Would trying to learn the different structures at those games and at Party, and how they affect your play, be counter-productive at all? I'm thinking it's hard enough to learn to do one thing really well, but learning to do basically the same thing two different ways, well...am I being paranoid about the likelihood of doing that throwing off my game or learning process somehow?

[TruFloridaGator]

With the roll, I think playing the 11s is worth it. If you just post HH & keep active on the forums, you can be at least a break even player at the 11s until you improve your game. I think the 11s is right for you.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider playing on UB or PS. Both have a 10% rake for the lower limit SnGs although the competition is (seems) tougher. Play the UB 5.50's for a month or 2 at your current pace and your SnG game will improve dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a Pokerstars account.

Would trying to learn the different structures at those games and at Party, and how they affect your play, be counter-productive at all? I'm thinking it's hard enough to learn to do one thing really well, but learning to do basically the same thing two different ways, well...am I being paranoid about the likelihood of doing that throwing off my game or learning process somehow?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would pick a structure and stick to it until you get it down. PokerStars and Party are so different, they're practically not even the same game.

[TruFloridaGator]

I started with PP skins & moved to PS & FT. I prefer the larger stack in the 5s & 11s. I would only move back when I plan on Multitabling.

[deception5]

I tried doing some of the party ones but honestly I like the pokerstars 5+.50's better. The rake is lower and if the players are better it's not by much and the fact that you start with 1500 chips instead of 800 gives a lot more wiggle room so you can splash around early to try to pick up some chips.

Just my thoughts :-)

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we agree to a point. Part of my reply was concerning his desire to become "better" at SnG's. I think the competition and the structure at both PS and UB will do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered your post first before I saw the responses to it; there seems to be a dialogue going on there.

It's confusing when it seems some say play the 5's, some the 10's, some say stick to play money, some say don't even play at Party at all. I like hearing all the ideas, but I do feel kind of like I'm still left at a point where it's very much a matter of personal judgment.

I was wondering about Scuba's standard for judging when you're ready for real money vs. play money. I'm guessing that could also be a way to measure whether you're ready to move up levels, or competent in the level you're at.

If so, is placing in the money 50% of the time pretty much the norm among successful SNG players? Or is it more something to shoot for but not expect to hit over the long term unless you're an exceptional player?

Is it a good standard for a newbie to use to measure his competence in real money SNG games, not just play money games?

By the way, I'll readily admit my dislike of play money games. It seems people really don't give a damn what they do in those games, so they hardly seem to have anything to do with real poker to me. Perhaps Scuba was incorporating the ridiculous play in play money games into his advice, but...I'm just trying to imagine those knuckleheads having anything to teach anyone beyond the stage of knowing whether a straight beats a flush. I mean...those games are...so absurd.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Would trying to learn the different structures at those games and at Party, and how they affect your play, be counter-productive at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, of all the posters on this forum, I can't think of anyone who is currently using this forum as well as dfscott to learn this game. I think you should carry some weight with his responses.

IMO, just play party. The way to win SNGs has everything to do with bubble play/strategy. The more often you play the bubble, the better. Learning how to play and win short-stacked is also a serious benefit. On party skins, you will be on the bubble faster (in terms of minutes) and more often short-stacked the most. I would find it painful to play for an entire hour, and then be out on the first hand of the bubble.

FWIW, I'm considering playing at the PS SNGs to gain some more early play experience. I think I will have a significant advantage over those players there due to my bubble play and short-stack abilities. So the reverse of what a lot of the lower limit posters suggest.

[Freudian]

Playing at 5+1 is ok as long as you are aware enough not to pick up any bad habits. I think in the long run pushin all in preflop with 77-10 in levels 1-2 will be a profitable play there.

But there is a rythm to Party SnGs everyone has to learn. I was used to stars when starting out and it feels completely alien with the blind structure. Getting comfortable with that is something you can do on 5+1.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I'll readily admit my dislike of play money games. It seems people really don't give a damn what they do in those games, so they hardly seem to have anything to do with real poker to me. Perhaps Scuba was incorporating the ridiculous play in play money games into his advice, but...I'm just trying to imagine those knuckleheads having anything to teach anyone beyond the stage of knowing whether a straight beats a flush. I mean...those games are...so absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were initially my thoughts about them. Especially since I despise playing them, knowing what I know now. But the difference in limit play money games and NL play money games is huge. Repeating what I said earlier, I don't think there's that much difference in the stupidity of the fish between fake money and the $10+1s.

Furthermore, while teaching a friend of mine, he pointed out that it helped quite a bit, before moving on to the real money games. I think he only played about 20-30. The one thing I remember that he learned that he folded every hand in one of his games, and he was ITM. VERY GOOD concept to learn, IMO.

50% ITM is not to be expected for real money SNGs, IMO. I've never played below a $10+1. So, I don't know about below there.

Frankly, the more unsure you are, and the distaste you have for play money, makes me think the $5+1s are right for you, for the moment.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
With the roll, I think playing the 11s is worth it. If you just post HH & keep active on the forums, you can be at least a break even player at the 11s until you improve your game. I think the 11s is right for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Tru.

My thinking is that I played 128 SNG's so far and am about 70 bucks behind. The fee differential between the 10's and the 5's alone pretty much covers that 70 bucks all by itself. If I had been paying at the same rate I would pay for 10's, I'd have been at $64 in fees paid instead of $128 paid at this point, and my $70 loss to date would be within a few dollars of non-existent.

IF...I played the 10's were no harder for me than the 5's.

I'm not actually concerned about the money that much, as I'm more than willing to pay the price to learn. I was just wondering if I was throwing away money stupidly.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider playing on UB or PS. Both have a 10% rake for the lower limit SnGs although the competition is (seems) tougher. Play the UB 5.50's for a month or 2 at your current pace and your SnG game will improve dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a Pokerstars account.

Would trying to learn the different structures at those games and at Party, and how they affect your play, be counter-productive at all? I'm thinking it's hard enough to learn to do one thing really well, but learning to do basically the same thing two different ways, well...am I being paranoid about the likelihood of doing that throwing off my game or learning process somehow?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would pick a structure and stick to it until you get it down. PokerStars and Party are so different, they're practically not even the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks dfscott.

I've read lots of other players saying essentially the same thing. I feel that since I'm just starting out, my learning process is still on shaky ground and I'm not at all sure I want to make it any harder on myself or more confusing. I usually learn better by mastering one thing before moving on to another, too, instead of keeping a whole bunch of things in my head that I may not be able to tie together for a long time.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried doing some of the party ones but honestly I like the pokerstars 5+.50's better. The rake is lower and if the players are better it's not by much and the fact that you start with 1500 chips instead of 800 gives a lot more wiggle room so you can splash around early to try to pick up some chips.

Just my thoughts :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you and Tru, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I wound up liking the Pokerstars and UB SNG formats better. I like the idea of being able to miss a flop or two in the early rounds without it having a long term impact on your chips. It seems like at Party, you have to either make money early or never see a flop in the early rounds if you don't want your stack to be turning into one of the smaller ones at the table by round 3 or 4 without ever really having played a hand.

I'll definitely check out the games everywhere sooner or later. I think I'm too raw a newbie to be messing with different structures at this point, though. I've barely been playing SNG's over a week, and I think I want to keep things as simple as possible for now unless it's going to absolutely stunt my growth.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing the 2+.20 and the 8+.80 on pacific. They are 20 person SnG but they are good for low BR

[/ QUOTE ]

20 person? I always think of SNG's as one table tourneys. Sounds like you are talking a MTT(multi-table tournaments).

It does sound kind of fun to play, though. I like MTT's a lot, but I'm really trying to narrow my focus in on one thing at a time. I'm not a hold'em natural, so I really have to concentrate.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right that the rake at the $5s is steep, but they are not -EV if you play well. I sometimes drop down to the 5s when I have a bad stretch in the 20s and 30s just to regroup mentally. They 5s can definately be beaten for money, I was getting a 40% return on investment even with the heavy rake. Thhe players are definately the softest lineup you can find in the party SNGs, but they are only a little bit worse than the 10+1 players. I think it would be a good place to work on your game if you are learning and/or have a small bankroll. A bad run at the $5+1s costs only like $50-100 bucks which is gentle on a small bankroll. If bankroll size is not an issue, I would go straight to the 10+1s (you should have $300-400 to start...if you lose that you are likely making fundamental mistakes).

Good luck,
Mcbandit

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Mcbandit. I'm wondering how much worse that "little bit" is.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not actually concerned about the money that much, as I'm more than willing to pay the price to learn. I was just wondering if I was throwing away money stupidly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then my advice is to play the 10+1s. The only reason I would ever see to play the 5+1s is if you didn't have the roll or you were worried about losing too much money. It doesn't make sense to pay the extra rake if the above concerns are not relevant. If you can beat the 5s, you can beat the 10s.
[ QUOTE ]
20 person? I always think of SNG's as one table tourneys. Sounds like you are talking a MTT(multi-table tournaments).

[/ QUOTE ]
They are sng's in the sense that you "sit and go". You just have to wait for 20 people to sit instead of 10.

[TruFloridaGator]

My suggestions would be Full Tilt, good bonuses to pay off through SNGs. Then go to UB with a rakeback, and then stars(unfortunately no rakeback). All 3 are great. I may switch back to party at some point to multi, but not while building my roll.

[GtrHtr]

I totally agree with both dfscott and Scuba when it comes to sticking with one site and learning that structure. Since you have a PS account, I'd recommend playing a few SnG's there and deciding which format fits you better: Party or Stars. Then stick with the one you like. The rake at PS is more favorable but if the format doesn't work for you then you have a problem.

For Scuba - I learn more from your posts than anyone's. Thanks for your posts.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would trying to learn the different structures at those games and at Party, and how they affect your play, be counter-productive at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, of all the posters on this forum, I can't think of anyone who is currently using this forum as well as dfscott to learn this game. I think you should carry some weight with his responses.

IMO, just play party. The way to win SNGs has everything to do with bubble play/strategy. The more often you play the bubble, the better. Learning how to play and win short-stacked is also a serious benefit. On party skins, you will be on the bubble faster (in terms of minutes) and more often short-stacked the most. I would find it painful to play for an entire hour, and then be out on the first hand of the bubble.

FWIW, I'm considering playing at the PS SNGs to gain some more early play experience. I think I will have a significant advantage over those players there due to my bubble play and short-stack abilities. So the reverse of what a lot of the lower limit posters suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of like how fast Party's structure is forcing me into making decisions, too. I have so much to learn, and the Party SNG structure seems to be forcing me to do it quickly by constantly threatening me with being short stacked and having to fight my way out of it -- and then repeating it in the next quick SNG.

This forum is also forcing me to recognize decision points I didn't used to see. I'm bouncing out a lot earlier, but I'm getting in the money, and getting 1sts and 2nds, way more often, too. I think the Party structure feels in a way artificially speedy, and that forces constant decision making that I'm sure is really good for me.

Your idea of using your Party-gained advantages in other sites sounds interesting. I want to hear about how it works out!

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
For Scuba - I learn more from your posts than anyone's. Thanks for your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif Thanks

Scuba
who thinks you learn more from sharing my learning curve than my advice.

[GtrHtr]

You get rakeback on UB? Would you mind telling me how so I can check in to it?

[TruFloridaGator]

Yeah, all of the places advertised on the right offer rakeback programs with UB.

[Scuba Chuck]

UB rakeback, check frequent flopper ad on top of webpage.

[TruFloridaGator]

Both are great and helpful. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[TruFloridaGator]

Few others too, most of them offer UB. PS is the only main site you can't find a RB for. I think 1 or 2 offer full tilt, but I already have an account. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
My suggestions would be Full Tilt, good bonuses to pay off through SNGs. Then go to UB with a rakeback, and then stars(unfortunately no rakeback). All 3 are great. I may switch back to party at some point to multi, but not while building my roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I'd heard that site was a ghost town, and it made me wonder if it was financially stable.

You find plenty of cheap SNG's there?

[GtrHtr]

My pleasure. I really like your specific hand questions. I tell myself I'd play it one way and always learn some aspect of the hand I'd never considered in the replies or your stated play. Good stuff.

[TruFloridaGator]

It is a ghost town, but it's picking up. I'm only playing there to pay off the good bonuses they offer. However, I have only found it slightly tougher than Pokerstars. Overtime though UB or pokerstars is better. The bonus may or may not be important, but I thought I'd take advantage of the bonus since I am building my roll. I would do UB with a rakeback program, so then even if you play only breakeven poker while improving you could be making money.

[TruFloridaGator]

a Gator hater in Gville? Where do you live? I am coming for you! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif a Nolie?

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
UB rakeback, check frequent flopper ad on top of webpage.

[/ QUOTE ]


thanks again Scuba. I ignore links on web pages like the plague for spyware, guess in this case it has cost me...

[TruFloridaGator]

Apologize about my posts about UB giving a rakeback for SNGs. I was wrong, I was in the thinking that they did offer that. Sorry about that. /images/graemlins/blush.gif Nonetheless it's a great site.

[Blarg]

Ah, thanks for the follow up. That does make a difference.

[McBandit]

The winning strategy for the 10+1s is essentially the same as for the 5+1s. The small difference in player ability you will see is perhaps slightly tighter play and a slight reduction in retarded all-ins at the 10+1 level. Basic ABC SNG strategy will beat both levels. I make a lower ROI at the 10+1s, but more $/hour.

McBandit

[Patriarch]

I played 100 $6s and the rake made what would have been a smal +ROI into a negative ROI. In disgust, I moved up to the $11s with a tiny bankroll of about $90. I luckily ran well for the first 20-30 STTs and now my roll is at $655 after 200. My ROI is ridiculous atm (40%) but FWIW I recommend skipping the $6s. The players are just as bad on $11s.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The winning strategy for the 10+1s is essentially the same as for the 5+1s. The small difference in player ability you will see is perhaps slightly tighter play and a slight reduction in retarded all-ins at the 10+1 level. Basic ABC SNG strategy will beat both levels. I make a lower ROI at the 10+1s, but more $/hour.

McBandit

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks McBandit.

[lorinda]

I'd rather lose 10% of $6 than lose 15% of $11.

Lori

[lorinda]

Id rather win 1% of $11 than lose 1% of $6

Lori

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I played 100 $6s and the rake made what would have been a smal +ROI into a negative ROI. In disgust, I moved up to the $11s with a tiny bankroll of about $90. I luckily ran well for the first 20-30 STTs and now my roll is at $655 after 200. My ROI is ridiculous atm (40%) but FWIW I recommend skipping the $6s. The players are just as bad on $11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Patriarch.

Your $6 experience sounds like mine; the rake accounts for almost all my losses.

The story of a good run or a good outcome is always inspirational, too, so thanks for that as well!

I was really thinking of staying at the $5+1's, but it sure is hard feeling stupid paying twice the rake I should be.

[lorinda]

It sounds a genuinely close call.

If the rake = losses then even if the games are exactly the same difficulty when you move up, you will still lose the rake, which is the same in actual $$$$ terms.

The difficulty arises in that you are losing less than the rake, but still losing, hence my second post.

It might be worth alternating for your next 100, and even though this isn't a great sample, it might help you "feel" where you should be.

Lori

[1C5]

To note, I just started playing poker last year and actually played SnGs before even limit ring games. I played about 2 months on the play money tables as I learnt all about the basic poker stuff. Skipped the $5s and in December went straight to the $11s. Played 500 of them since then, learning more each day and now I am up to the 22s where I will be for the next 500 probably.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds a genuinely close call.

If the rake = losses then even if the games are exactly the same difficulty when you move up, you will still lose the rake, which is the same in actual $$$$ terms.

The difficulty arises in that you are losing less than the rake, but still losing, hence my second post.

It might be worth alternating for your next 100, and even though this isn't a great sample, it might help you "feel" where you should be.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it is close. I only started playing SNG's a bit over a week ago, and my sample size is still tiny, under 150. There's no way to get really definitive about anything at this point, since even a couple more in the money's could shift my numbers all over the place.

If everything had worked out exactly the same on the 10's as they did on the 5's in this brief run, I would be monetarily ahead, but it's easy to see all the "if's" embedded in that statement.

I think I may try to bring my $5's up to roughly 200 played at least, then consider things.

I think the main determiner of what I should do really is not the excessive fees paid at the 5+1's, my wins and losses, nor some arbitrary number of games played, but how I feel about my skills. I do feel my skills have jumped up very sharply, but that sounds pretty funny in the context of basically coming from zero, and doing so just last week. And still not showing a profit.

I'll see how I feel in the next 50 games or so.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
To note, I just started playing poker last year and actually played SnGs before even limit ring games. I played about 2 months on the play money tables as I learnt all about the basic poker stuff. Skipped the $5s and in December went straight to the $11s. Played 500 of them since then, learning more each day and now I am up to the 22s where I will be for the next 500 probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the transition like to the 11's for you? Was it a smooth thing, or did you have to do some rethinking and changing the way you played?

And what signaled to you that it was time to go to the 22's?

[lehighguy]

DOnt play $5 SNGs

[Slim Pickens]

I'd just like to point out that in order to get the uncertainty in your ROI down to the size where you could even tell if you needed to play the 6's vs the 11's for bankroll protection or the difference in return created by the differing rake fraction, one of two things will have occured. (FWIW that size is about 2k, but numerous threads have covered that topic and it's not that interesting.)

1) You will have lost your bankroll because you are a losing player, even if that bankroll does seem quite large compared to the buyin.

2) You will have driven yourself absolutely crazy because you are a winning player. Even if you went raptor-style and did 2k in a month, doing that much work without winning a significant amount of money will probably drive you to quit SnG's, dismissing them as an utter waste of time.

Instead, I suggest playing the 6's until you "feel like" playing the 11's, because you'll never have a better indication of when to move up than that. Your sample size won't get big enough in the next year to make that decision based on pure numbers, so go for it when you "feel" ready: on your birthday, after a good run, whatever. My guess is that you're a winning player. Hell, I am and I absolutely suck. It's just that players at the 6's and 11's suck even worse than I could possibly imagine. If I limp-reraised all-in with pocket 7's on Level 1 and got called by the raiser's KK, I'd have to go hang myself, but apparently most players just redeposit.

Slim

[TruFloridaGator]

At PS & FT though the rake is still 10%, so what's the difference if your building your roll?

[TruFloridaGator]

Ok, if I am playing the 5s right now & trying to build my roll how many buy ins would be a minimum for me to get started at the 11s?

[Slim Pickens]

I'm no bankroll guru, but my thought process goes something like this. If my bankroll is easily replenishable, as in, I can just wait two months and redposit once I get my check from Burner King, I'm starting at the level where I have at about 15 buy-ins. The risk-of-ruin is higher than would generally be considered acceptable for a professional who absolutely cannot go broke, but if your required bankroll at a given level is comparable to your monthly disposable income, don't waste your time farting around with the lower levels. It might take a few tries to get going, but as long as you can spare the money on a month-to-month basis, fine. You just keep playing chicken with variance until you win.

15 buy-ins is good for a bankroll as long as if you lose it you can put in another 15 buy-ins out of your other income next month and still keep the kids clothed. If you can't do this because your poker bankroll has grown beyond your ability to replenish it at it's current level (successful rec players) or poker IS your income (pros), keep a much higher number, maybe 50 buy-ins.

Slim

[Scuba Chuck]

With the number of posts on this thread, it seems that this should be hashed out, and answered, philosophically at least, in the upcoming FAQ

Do you see why? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Blarg]

It's pretty interesting how many different and quite reasonable opinions there are as to the best answer.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To note, I just started playing poker last year and actually played SnGs before even limit ring games. I played about 2 months on the play money tables as I learnt all about the basic poker stuff. Skipped the $5s and in December went straight to the $11s. Played 500 of them since then, learning more each day and now I am up to the 22s where I will be for the next 500 probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the transition like to the 11's for you? Was it a smooth thing, or did you have to do some rethinking and changing the way you played?

And what signaled to you that it was time to go to the 22's?

[/ QUOTE ]


You know I was lucky that I got off to a good start, I think I won my very first real money SnG and I was on fire (45% ROI after my first 200 SnGs). So it was about as good as it could have been.
Soon after I had a nice 18 in a row out of the money streak whcih was ok because my bankroll was fine by then. But if I would have started with 18 OTM in a row, who knows I might have quit poker forever. Just lucky to get off to a good start.

[1C5]

And as for moving to the 22s, my bankroll is now plently big and I have more confidence so I know I won't play "scared" there and posters on this forum that I trust told me I was ready for the 22s and so far they are going fine for me. (knock on wood) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[tjh]

[ QUOTE ]


I would pick a structure and stick to it until you get it down. PokerStars and Party are so different, they're practically not even the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

They are NOT the same game. A nice review of the limit structures and chip counts of the online games would be nice.

Here is my quick review.
Party Poker SNG.
Fast extremely fast, lightning fast. Measly 800 chips, fast level changes. Leads to quick games but the blinds will kill you. Have to select a large enough range of hands to play early on to beat the blinds.
Strangely the 2 table SNG's play slower and you get more chips. So you need to adjust your play even within party for the one table vs the two table SNG.

PokerStars.
Better players was the conventional wisdom over the years but advertising campaigns may have brought in schools of fish. They play much slower than Party but perhaps not as slow as UB. Aleo's guide is probably too loose for stars and UB.

UB...
Lots of chips. Slow blinds. Two ways to play this. You can play some more hands because they are cheap or you can afford to wait wait wait for some really good starting hands and still have plenty of chips to double up with.

I second the advice on picking a site and sticking to it.

I for example started at UB, I did alright. Tried Empire/party for a while due to reload bonus. I did horrible in the one table learned I could do alright at the 2 table. Tried Pokerstars two table.. Did alright.

So far the party one table are the sng's that I do the worst at. Go figure. I see the fish, but I can not adjust my play to that speedy of a structure.

Good luck to ya.

tjh

[TruFloridaGator]

Very Similar experiences....good post

[Blarg]

Well, after seeing this thread, I played about another 50 SNG's, and was in the money in about a third of them. Had a couple nasty stretches out of the money, one for 9 in a row, one for 10 in a row. Just everything went wrong; I saw a lot of smaler hands call my pushes and turn into flushes and straights, for instance. Oh well.

I snuck some 10's in there not too far from the beginning and out of five of them, got in the money once with a 2nd place. Then the last eight I did were 10+1's, and I was in the money in five of them, with two 1sts and three 3rds. I feel I could have done better on two of those thirds, but I'm not complaining. It's good to be hungry. Anyway, that quick little run toward the end there helped pull me out of my costly horrible run on the 5's, and so for the past couple days I'm only down about 14 bucks.

That's different than making a profit, of course. But I'm learning, and that part feels pretty good, as well as my tending to get more 1sts by far than I used to. I even got a compliment on my "crazy" pushing strategy in one of the 10's I was just in, and people were starting to say, "He can't have it every time." The funny thing was, they didn't want to find out when, and a couple of times I wish they would have, like when I had a pair of queens. Anyway, I wound up from having like 300 chips when it was 6-way and I was about to be blinded out to being the chip leader in that one before a couple of harsh hands took my good starting cards out back and kicked their ass, bouncing me out in third. A very fun come-back from way behind.

My sample size is very small, but my feeling was that the 10's were okay for me. Which is good, because I was a little intimidated by the thought of doing the 10's when I wasn't profitable in the 5's yet. I actually found the 5's more aggressive, which means there was less chance for my aggression to get me any free chips by stealing blinds. I'm sure the 10's will give me plenty of that too, but as long as I'm feeling comfortable enough to play strongly in the 10's and not finding the competition any stiffer, I think I'll stay in the 10's for a while, so I can pay less of a fee per game(compared to the game size). If I start taking a pounding, I can always move back down.

Anyway, continued thanks to this great forum. There's something about SNG's that really appeals to me, and I'm really hoping I pick up some good skills so I can do very well in them. I just got eastbay's program and am tinkering with that a bit, and Poker Academy Pro to practice heads-up. I'm poker-nerding it up big time, and having fun. I wish there were more hours in the day!