Playing only sit n gos, NOT WORTH IT?

[xPuns1her]

Ok, I've been reading other posts throughout twoplustwo and I just came across "byciclekick"'s "My Story" post. That, along with hearing other peoples stories about limit, I have come to the conclusion that it seems alot more profitiable than playing only sit n gos for profit. Playing only one level of sit n gos or even varying levels every so often has seemed like a long uphill struggle. If I play 5 sit n gos and win one and bust in the others ($109's), then im down money. If I play two sit n gos and get 3rd in one and bust in the other im down money. It seems one must post God Like sit n gos skills to actually generate some major profit here. When I hear about people making 15k in a month I want a piece of that action. I know I am nieve and just starting to get serious about poker but I want to be where the money is. I know there is much to learn but I am more than willing. The strong point of my game is NL STT and MTT. I generally find limit boring and I'm not very good at it. BUT, am I at least right about it generating alot more cash flow per month?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
BUT, am I at least right about it generating alot more cash flow per month?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, and it's easy to see where your problem lies. IMHO, ego.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
If I play 5 sit n gos and win one and bust in the others ($109's), then im down money. If I play two sit n gos and get 3rd in one and bust in the other im down money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is going to be indicative of your ITM% then you are best to not play SNGs at the $109s (or any level for that matter).

Something around 38% is the accepted benchmark for profitability around these parts.

[xPuns1her]

Those were just two examples to prove a point.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
am I at least right about it generating alot more cash flow per month?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends... what kind of luckbox are you?

[Sam T.]

If your question is whether you can make money with an ITM of 20%, then the answer is "No."

If your question is whether you can make money with an ROI below 0%, then the answer is (lemme think about this)..."No."

Unless I'm reading your post wrong, your lager question seems to be, "Can I make money at SnGs if I am a losing player?"

No.

Sam

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
I know I am nieve and just starting to get serious about poker but I want to be where the money is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot-limit razz.

[xPuns1her]

Luckbox?

[xPuns1her]

My ITM right now is over 50 percent so [censored] off. Those were just two examples of unique situations.

[xPuns1her]

Also, I didnt say you cant make money at sit n gos i said you can make MORE at limit?

[sng-sam]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends... what kind of luckbox are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly the greatest reply in my short 2+2 history.

[Blarg]

Well, you'll make way more in rakeback in ring games. That's enough to actually turn some unprofitable players into profitable ones.

And ring games are always open in abundance. 10k a month is not at all uncommon for pro's in ring games. If you want more upside, especially factoring in rake, you'll probably get it in ring games.

That's presuming you're equally good at both ring games and SNG's.

Remember, though, that BK is a poker prodigy. Don't go thinking you're going to be the next BK any more than you'd think you're going to be the next top basketball player or anything else. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but you have to set your goals based on your talents and drive, not on somebody else's combination of gifts and great story.

[tech]

There is possibly more upside to limit, especially with rakeback. However, the variance in limit is MUCH higher. I prefer STTs because of their low variance compared to other forms of poker. Yes, variance in STTs is still a pain-in-the-ass, but it is not nearly as bad as limit.

[zaphod]

Well it depends.
Are there money to be won playing limit? Sure if you are good enough.
Are there money to be won playing SNG's? Sure if you are good enough.
It depends what game you play best. As simple as that.

[superleeds]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Coffee everywhere, I'm crying that was so good.

[sng-sam]

approach either game as a humble student and you will learn from those on either forum. The greatest part is that you have people that is long as you don't *ahem* cuss them out will be happy to teach you what cost them thousands of dollars to learn.

SAM

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, though, that BK is a poker prodigy. Don't go thinking you're going to be the next BK any more than you'd think you're going to be the next top basketball player or anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is BK???

[EnderFFX]

And how many SnG have you played to achieve an ITM of 50%?

[xPuns1her]

Are there any good books for only SNG strategy?

[xPuns1her]

Ive played over a thousands sit n gos on party poker and made over 25k but thats since I began over two years ago and I didnt keep statistics back then. But along with the ones I have kept stats for and my best estimate of my ROI on previous sit n gos I have achieved around a 40-50 ITM.

[johnnybeef]

First off let me start off by saying that it is truly a difficult feat to become a winning player at any formof poker....that being said, with the high blind structure in relation to the chips in play, the party sngs tend to become a preflop game. Playing well preflop is easier than playing well on all streets. When you combine the relative ease of the structure with all of the bad players at the party sngs, you have a very profitablble game even for someone who has only recently started studying the game.

With all that in mind, it is absolutely imperrative for a pro to learn other games to beat in order to stay ahead of the trend as this tree of profit will not remain fruitful forever.

To answer your question, SNGS are where the best profit is right now. I encourage you to learn how to play SNGS by actively participating on this board. Once you have learned to tap that resource, you can shift your focus to other games

Good Luck,
Johnny

[multifast1]

[ QUOTE ]
My ITM right now is over 50 percent so [censored] off. Those were just two examples of unique situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Settle down.. The problem is it's just as easy to say "If I play limit and I lose on one monster hand, and then win two small pots I'm still losing overall".. same logic in my mind. Point is if you're over %50 ITM longterm at medium-high level buy-ins then you're making great money.

I was playing limit only for over a year and grinding out a nice income.. One thing w/ ring game is the variance is much tougher. Your winning sessions/losing sessions even for a good player is not much over 50%.. Something to keep in mind.

I would "generally agree" that limit poker is where the money is at from all I've read. That's assuming you are equally good at all styles.. Personally I've found SNG's to be FAR more fun and challenging to play. The difference in $/hr is becoming smaller and smaller too as I get better and am playing more tables and moving up in limits. I doubt it'll ever get to the same hourly rate as I had w/ limit ring games (for the same "risk level") but the entertainment value is much higher w/ NLHE sng's.

On a side note... I've found that when I go back and play limit ring games from time to time I do MUCH better. I've had a bout 8 significant sessions and have been well ahead each time. Either I was just running hot and/or I have learn some thinking skills from all the NLHE I've played lately... When you play a lot of limit ring poker, you tend to become very mechanical and stop thinking as much... as least that's how it was for me.

Pick your poison I guess.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good books for only SNG strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

TOP is good for anything, and HOH has some great examples. There's not really a great book exclusive to SNGs though - this forum is as good as it gets for learning.

[ QUOTE ]
But along with the ones I have kept stats for and my best estimate of my ROI on previous sit n gos I have achieved around a 40-50 ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, though, that BK is a poker prodigy. Don't go thinking you're going to be the next BK any more than you'd think you're going to be the next top basketball player or anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is BK???

[/ QUOTE ]

Bicyclekick, the guy the OP refers to in his post. He has a post up in the general texas hold'em forum, about his quick and big poker success.

That's where the talk of being a "luckbox" comes from, too.

[ChoicestHops]

To answer your question, I think limit may be more profitable because it's easier to beat variance. If you play at 5/10 and achieve 1.00BB with 30,000 hands a month, that's a profit of $3,000. Problem is I find limit way too boring even when playing 6-8 tables. It becomes too robotical to just click raise, check, or call.

With SnG's, a majority of the time I actually find myself thinking about the current situations and reasoning the types of hands my opponents could have based on the reads I have picked up. Im not using Playerview like I would on limit games where I dont have to pay hardly any attention at all to my opponents.

In the end, I think I develop a much better poker playing game than I do with limit, and it's much more fun and alot harder to get burned out on.

[xPuns1her]

How is that funny Terp, an ITM of 40 percent isnt insane? I started with 50 dollars on Party Poker two years ago and I only played STT and MTT and made bank. Thats a rough estimate, perhaps its more like 35 percent seeing as I am new to calculating ITM. You have to understand I lack the poker knowledge and book of terms most have on this site. Take what I say for its face value until I learn more.

[beeyjay]

my take on it is that limit is a buncha posers sittin around with f'in calculators that take my money everytime i sit down cuz its boring as all balls to sit there and wait for a really good hand only to be called all the way down and lose anyway.

[xPuns1her]

[ QUOTE ]
my take on it is that limit is a buncha posers sittin around with f'in calculators that take my money everytime i sit down cuz its boring as all balls to sit there and wait for a really good hand only to be called all the way down and lose anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. I feel the same way sometimes.

[ChoicestHops]

It's pretty simple to estimate ITM. If you are saying you are 50%, that means out of 1,000 SnG's you are in the final three 50% of the time, which is an incredible feat for 100+9's.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
How is that funny Terp, an ITM of 40 percent isnt insane? I started with 50 dollars on Party Poker two years ago and I only played STT and MTT and made bank. Thats a rough estimate, perhaps its more like 35 percent seeing as I am new to calculating ITM. You have to understand I lack the poker knowledge and book of terms most have on this site. Take what I say for its face value until I learn more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the "40 to 50" comment was funny for two reasons - for one, 50% is impossible. Secondly, there's a HUGE difference between 4 or 5 percentage points in ITM range, and you gave a spread of ten.

I have no reason to not to believe that you've made money playing poker though. Why would anyone lie to a bunch of strangers?

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I didnt say you cant make money at sit n gos i said you can make MORE at limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also lose MORE at limit.

[xPuns1her]

Enlighten me more Terp, please, spare me the sarcasm in your next post. Thanks bud.

If you think im stupid than teach me dont berate me.
Im here for help.

[Sponger15SB]

BK is in the top of the top of people in terms of money won this year playing poker from 2+2, to even compare anything to just him is pretty unrealistic.

Focus on your own play.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Enlighten me more Terp, please, spare me the sarcasm in your next post. Thanks bud.

If you think im stupid than teach me dont berate me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you my reasons for "laughing" in the earlier post, and I do try to help here. Seriously, if you say you're a winning player, I believe you. If you're truly at close to 50% ITM though, be forewarned that you won't run that good forever. I don't think you're stupid - truly stupid players would rarely find their way to a forum like this. Some of the questions you ask do imply that you have room to improve your basic understanding of SNGs though, and I don't mean that in a condescending way.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you'll make way more in rakeback in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just plain wrong. if you play the highest limit cash game, and the highest limit sngs, you will make A LOT more in the sngs. if you 8 table even 215s, you can make 40 an hour or so in rakeback. thats not UNHEARD of in 10-20 6max or anything, but if you play step 5s, or step 5 minis, the rakeback is just huge.

[ QUOTE ]
10k a month is not at all uncommon for pro's in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not at all uncommon for a pro's in sngs either.

holla

[multifast1]

Summary so far...

Lower Variance/Risk - Advantage: NLHE SNG
More fun to play - Advantage: NLHE SNG
$/hr potential - Advantage: Limit ring
Rakeback - Advantage: Limit Ring

Winner: Push

[GtrHtr]

Who said you were stupid?

BTW, what's your user name on party and will someone please run proph. on it?

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
More fun to play - Advantage: NLHE SNG
$/hr potential - Advantage: Limit ring

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think the answer to those two should be the same. And it varies from player to player.

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
Winner: Push

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on the goals of the individual. Lower variance is sometimes more important than upside profit, or vice versa.

[multifast1]

Terp - NO way you can say "same" for fun to play! At least not if you're playing enough to be profitable... Limit ring games become sooooooooooo mechanical real quick. I'm sure if you 8+ table then it becomes mechanical too, but not nearly as bad as limit. You might have an arguement for $/hr potential but all my experience form playing and reading 2+2 is that it's slightly higher for limit ring games compared to "same level" of SnG tournies.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Terp - NO way you can say "same" for fun to play! At least not if you're playing enough to be profitable... Limit ring games become sooooooooooo mechanical real quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you've played thousands and thousands, and 8 or more at a time, you'd be surprised how boring SNGs can get. And I think SNGs are every bit as mechanical as ring games, if not more so. You just get to play more hands at the end, but you're still not making real decisions - just push or fold...

PLO ring games - now that's some FUN!! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More fun to play - Advantage: NLHE SNG
$/hr potential - Advantage: Limit ring

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think the answer to those two should be the same. And it varies from player to player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if someone offered you 10 times what you make on poker in exchange for you hitting nails in your feet, would that automatically make the latter activity more fun?

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone offered you 10 times what you make on poker in exchange for you hitting nails in your feet, would that automatically make the latter activity more fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that's a comparable analogy?

[stupidsucker]

If you are really getting 50% ITM (even 40% ITM) at the 109s.......

I am speachless.

The fact that you post these stats basicaly complaining that you arent making enough money throws me in the direction that..

A) You are lying about your stats
B) You just dont know much of anything
C) You are a God at limit

The first hurdle you need to get over is the reality hurdle.

Im not trying to be mean. Think of me as the coach that cares, but Im tough. No one can really answer the question. ONly you can find out what your roi will be, only you can find out what your BB/100 will be at limit. Hour for hour with rake back equal skills at both then limit may be better.

If 10k/month is what you are after then you need to play about 800-900 of the 109s a month AND be a good player.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if someone offered you 10 times what you make on poker in exchange for you hitting nails in your feet, would that automatically make the latter activity more fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that's a comparable analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if someone claims the only element of poker that is related to fun is the accumulation of money.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive played over a thousands sit n gos on party poker and made over 25k but thats since I began over two years ago and I didnt keep statistics back then. But along with the ones I have kept stats for and my best estimate of my ROI on previous sit n gos I have achieved around a 40-50 ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me no believy you. Tell us your nickname and maybe I'll be eating crow.

It is hard enough to become good at poker. A fairly small percentage of people will be able to do it.
The percentage of folks who can do so and also not keep stats on themselves is going to be much, much smaller. It is very easy to fool yourself about how well you are doing.

There is a big difference between thinking that you are probably getting an ROI of 50% and actually doing it. You can talk yourself out of remembering that bad stretch of games...I was tired, I was drunk, I was watching TV, and then pretend they don't count. They do count.

For a thousand sit-n-gos, and making 25K doing it...at an ROI of 50%, you have been crushing the 50s. That's a mighty fine heater, provided that it is true. If that actually represents what your expectation in the game is, then you deserve congratulations on being the best poker player ever.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you'll make way more in rakeback in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just plain wrong. if you play the highest limit cash game, and the highest limit sngs, you will make A LOT more in the sngs. if you 8 table even 215s, you can make 40 an hour or so in rakeback. thats not UNHEARD of in 10-20 6max or anything, but if you play step 5s, or step 5 minis, the rakeback is just huge.

[ QUOTE ]
10k a month is not at all uncommon for pro's in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not at all uncommon for a pro's in sngs either.

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure step 5's should even be in this discussion. That's at a higher level than most people would be willing to play whether they're pro's or not. Certainly higher level than 10/20 and 15/30 in terms of the investment, right?

I make a lot more in rakeback in ring games than I do in SNG's. I'm not sure what you're doing that changes that situation around any.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Terp - NO way you can say "same" for fun to play! At least not if you're playing enough to be profitable... Limit ring games become sooooooooooo mechanical real quick. I'm sure if you 8+ table then it becomes mechanical too, but not nearly as bad as limit. You might have an arguement for $/hr potential but all my experience form playing and reading 2+2 is that it's slightly higher for limit ring games compared to "same level" of SnG tournies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have to agree here regarding the fun factor. Limit ring games really perfect the definition of "grind." You can go many hours without having to make a very interesting decision.

That's why I can 8-table limit with no sweat whatsoever, and think I could probably 12-table them, but with SNG's, I'm really kind of stuck at 4 tables. There's more to think about and do, more room to be a little creative, and the decisions have far more consequence.

Anyway, it's perfectly possible some people just don't like SNG's that much for whatever reason, but if I had to make a guess on what's more fun for the average person, SNG's would be an extremely easy choice over limit ring games.

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you've played thousands and thousands, and 8 or more at a time, you'd be surprised how boring SNGs can get. And I think SNGs are every bit as mechanical as ring games, if not more so. You just get to play more hands at the end, but you're still not making real decisions - just push or fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm, this might have something to do with the "wiring" of each person. I can do 12+ SNGs at a time while reading 2+2, but 8 tables of limit make my head want to explode.

[UMTerp]

Ask anyone here that plays 8+ tables if it's "fun". It's not terrible, but I'd rather be at a bar or watching a game or something.

At a single table, or live, I'd tend to agree with you guys.

I've never multitabled ring games seriously (for weeks at a time or anything), but I'm sure that's no party either.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
My ITM right now is over 50 percent so [censored] off. Those were just two examples of unique situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I've stopped giggling and I think I'll compose a serious answer to your post... although after this I'm not sure it's warranted.

Anyways, if you didn't understand my luckbox question, you probably didn't read BKs story closely. Go look at it again. And you definitely haven't read his posts over the past 6 months - 1 year enough to really have a handle on what it takes to make the kind of money he has from this game.

BK is a pretty unique combination of someone who has worked extremely hard at improving his game for the past year or two and been fortunate enough to run REALLY [censored] WELL. This is not an easy feat. All the while he has pushed his limits up and up as his bankroll permits. His experience is not something that you should be basing decisions on when deciding what's best for you.

A couple more thoughts. I would guess that the upper end on earnings would be found in limit games over SNGs, but I'm not certain about that. I would also guess that it takes a much better poker player to crush the high end limit games than it does to crush the high end SNGs. I'm more certain of that than I am the first statement. And I say these things as someone who has never played the high end of either game, so take my $.02 for what it's worth...

If you think you have what it takes to beat those high limit games, by all means go for it. Good luck with that.

[xPuns1her]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ive played over a thousands sit n gos on party poker and made over 25k but thats since I began over two years ago and I didnt keep statistics back then. But along with the ones I have kept stats for and my best estimate of my ROI on previous sit n gos I have achieved around a 40-50 ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me no believy you. Tell us your nickname and maybe I'll be eating crow.

It is hard enough to become good at poker. A fairly small percentage of people will be able to do it.
The percentage of folks who can do so and also not keep stats on themselves is going to be much, much smaller. It is very easy to fool yourself about how well you are doing.

There is a big difference between thinking that you are probably getting an ROI of 50% and actually doing it. You can talk yourself out of remembering that bad stretch of games...I was tired, I was drunk, I was watching TV, and then pretend they don't count. They do count.

For a thousand sit-n-gos, and making 25K doing it...at an ROI of 50%, you have been crushing the 50s. That's a mighty fine heater, provided that it is true. If that actually represents what your expectation in the game is, then you deserve congratulations on being the best poker player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the fact of the matter is I am still a newbie idiot and I am constantly revised my idiotic statements. I can assure you though that I have made money playing sit n gos at least that I know. But how big or small my ITM and ROI are is anyones guess. It was foolish of me to make that statement in the first place. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[xPuns1her]

And... I guess my next move now is to just grind it out 2 tabling more sit n gos, read posts here, post hand histories, and learn.

[multifast1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask anyone here that plays 8+ tables if it's "fun". It's not terrible, but I'd rather be at a bar or watching a game or something.

At a single table, or live, I'd tend to agree with you guys.

I've never multitabled ring games seriously (for weeks at a time or anything), but I'm sure that's no party either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Single tabling ring games is no fun!!! That's my point I guess. Ring games are boring right from the get go once you "get it". At least with SnG's, the fun factor or thinking factor doesn't get diluted until at least 4 tables for most people. You're right though... 8+ tables of anything isn't going to be much fun, unless you have fun counting the money you're making /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[john_]

[ QUOTE ]
I have come to the conclusion that it seems alot more profitiable than playing only sit n gos for profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have already ascertained a conclusion then why bother posting here asking people what they think? It sounds like you can't handle variance, good luck with that in ring games.

[Blarg]

Of course. Poker is work. Any form of it is going to become much more boring after doing it for a while. I still think the ability to vary bet sizes in no-limit tourneys, and tourneys also having a beginning, middle, and end, makes them less uniform and bland than limit ring games, though.

Especially full table. 6-max is a little more exciting at least. That seems to close the gap a little bit, I think. I've never played it, but my guess is that short-handed no limit ring games might be a very fun form of poker.

[Phil Van Sexton]

I think a good 4 tabling win rate at 5/10 6max is 2BB/100hands (BB is big bet, $10). You get about 80 hands per hour, so your hourly rate is:

2 * (320/100) * 10 = $64/hr

Irie's controversial post says a good ROI at a 100/9 SnG is 12%. Let's say you can play 5 per hour by tabling in sets of 4:

(109 * 5) * 0.12 = $65.40/hr

Conclusion: none.

These numbers are probably all wrong, and your numbers will certainly be different anyway. What is my point exactly?

Try different types of games and see which ones you are better at and/or enjoy playing. Switch if you start getting bored.

[sng-sam]

[ QUOTE ]

And... I guess my next move now is to just grind it out 2 tabling more sit n gos, read posts here, post hand histories, and learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

does this seem to quick a flip flop? Is he trying to scam the forum. It sounds awefully Degen/Guachofish-like

I don't trust anyone anymore. Have you heard that some poker players are not honest!?!?! Shameful!

[multifast1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a good 4 tabling win rate at 5/10 6max is 2BB/100hands (BB is big bet, $10). You get about 80 hands per hour, so your hourly rate is:

2 * (320/100) * 10 = $64/hr

Irie's controversial post says a good ROI at a 100/9 SnG is 12%. Let's say you can play 5 per hour by tabling in sets of 4:

(109 * 5) * 0.12 = $65.40/hr

Conclusion: none.

These numbers are probably all wrong, and your numbers will certainly be different anyway. What is my point exactly?

Try different types of games and see which ones you are better at and/or enjoy playing. Switch if you start getting bored.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably silly to knitpick this to death BUT.. I gotta take odds with your numbers. I just don't think you can compare playing 5/10 ring to 109 SnG's. Typical bankroll for limit ring is considered 300 BB. This equals $3K for 5/10. If you consider 50 buy-ins a standard bankroll then that puts you at $60 per buy-in.. or the 55's. Using that as the comparison your $/hr is half!!

Obviously you could debate the proper bankrolls and what is considered a good win rate at each. Also, consider that a change from 2BB/100 to 3BB/100 (a very reasonable range) has a much bigger effect on $/hr than even going from 12% to 20% ROI in Sng's!

You're right though in principle... try different games and see which is better for you. It's all relative anyway. I've found I can make a few bucks either way but the fun factor of SnG's outweighs the $/hr I'm giving up by not playing ring limit... I'm only willing to make that trade-off because I play poker on the side.. If it was my profession, well then I wouldn't mind "grinding it out" 8-10 hrs/day if it meant bringing in a few more $

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Try different types of games and see which ones you are better at and/or enjoy playing. Switch if you start getting bored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I played limit poker for a year, working my way up from .05/.10 games to 4-tabling 3/6 before the boredom overwhelmed me. At that point, I abandonded my limit compadres (ignoring the ridicule they hurled at my back) and traded in my caddy for a jag. Or my jag for a caddy, depending on your point of view.

I'm enjoying it a lot more, but I've only been playing to 2-3 months. Who knows, I may be back playing limit this time next year.

As long at the $$ go up and I'm having fun, who cares?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
As long at the $$ go up and I'm having fun, who cares?


[/ QUOTE ]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The only point it proves is that you're a below average SNG player, at least at the $100 + 9 level.

If you play 10-seat SNGs and have an ITM of 45% with an even distribution among 1st, 2nd & 3rd, that's an ROI of 37.6% at the $100+9 level, slightly less when the vig is 10%. That's also a net profit of $4,100/100 SNG's.

Now if you can overlap games and start one while in the middle of another, you should be able to play 100/week. Thus those parameters will result in damn close to $15K/month.

With a starting bankroll of about $2,000, you could hit these numbers *if* you have the requisite 50% skill edge over the field. If you have neither the bankroll nor the edge at the 100 level, step down to a level where you do and build it up.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you'll make way more in rakeback in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just plain wrong. if you play the highest limit cash game, and the highest limit sngs, you will make A LOT more in the sngs. if you 8 table even 215s, you can make 40 an hour or so in rakeback. thats not UNHEARD of in 10-20 6max or anything, but if you play step 5s, or step 5 minis, the rakeback is just huge.

[ QUOTE ]
10k a month is not at all uncommon for pro's in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not at all uncommon for a pro's in sngs either.

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure step 5's should even be in this discussion. That's at a higher level than most people would be willing to play whether they're pro's or not. Certainly higher level than 10/20 and 15/30 in terms of the investment, right?

I make a lot more in rakeback in ring games than I do in SNG's. I'm not sure what you're doing that changes that situation around any.

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion of which form has higher rakeback seems silly to me. First some thoughts. At lower limits, SNG rake is much lower. At the 109 and 215 level SNG rake is higher. For example, at the 215 level, let's say your average duration at a table is 40 minutes. Your then paying $22.50/hour/table in rake. On the other hand at 15/30 the hourly table rake is probably around $120, so an average player is paying $12/hr/table. Further, in ring games, if you play tight you probably pay less than 1/10th of the share of rake because you are involved in fewer hands. A tight player effectively has a higher rakeback percentage than a SNG player.

Now the reason I think this is silly. Higher rakeback simply means higher rake. This is a disadvantage not an advantage. I think the rising tournament fees are a pretty good reason to switch from SNGs to ring games once you get above the 215 level.

Paul

[xPuns1her]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And... I guess my next move now is to just grind it out 2 tabling more sit n gos, read posts here, post hand histories, and learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

does this seem to quick a flip flop? Is he trying to scam the forum. It sounds awefully Degen/Guachofish-like

I don't trust anyone anymore. Have you heard that some poker players are not honest!?!?! Shameful!

[/ QUOTE ]


Ive already begun posting HH's /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I also think its time to go down to 55's and then put all my bankroll into one $15k+500
JUST KIDDING /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TeenerBall]

Isn't his nickname xPun1sher on party just like on here? I seem to remember a post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2311390&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) in which he was berating somebody after he got knocked out of a SnG.

[xPuns1her]

Yeah, from Daliman. We already PM'd eachother a few times and now we are buds. I play with summary no chat now. Trying to work on that anger thing...

[Daliman]

Your ITM if you are a winning player is likely between 36-40% at the 50 to 100 level. Aleomagushas made a pretty nice program for tracking SNG's, and strict tracking is highly recommended.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think you can compare playing 5/10 ring to 109 SnG's. Typical bankroll for limit ring is considered 300 BB. This equals $3K for 5/10.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing the 5-10 6-max game with a 3K bankroll, you better have some more money ready for when you go broke. I wouldn't touch this game without at least 5K.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you could debate the proper bankrolls and what is considered a good win rate at each. Also, consider that a change from 2BB/100 to 3BB/100 (a very reasonable range) has a much bigger effect on $/hr than even going from 12% to 20% ROI in Sng's!

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

Lets say player A from the PVS's example increases his winrate to 3BB/100:
3 * (320/100) * 10 = $96/hr

Now player B increases his ROI to 20%:
(109 * 5) * 0.2 = $109/hr

Who had a bigger effect again?