ring games or sit n go

[treeofwisdom7]

im hitting one hellof a bad run in sit n gos. i only play one at a time and im starting to get bored like hell finishing on the dam bubble or so dam close to it..in the past couple days i was playing really low buy in NL poker *ring games* and i was winning a little by 3 tabling it.. i havent tried to 3table or even 2 table sit n gos. if i had to guess i would think that my sit n go play is a tad bit better than my ring play.. or maybe my sit n go play isnt that great because i havent formed a good ring game strategy/? what do you guys suggest i do? 3 table sit n gos or play ring games or keep playing 1 table low buy in sit n gos/

[valenzuela]

4table the 11s.

[treeofwisdom7]

well just in case people dont know what i play i'll tell you . i play the 5$ 1 table and have been donig that for about a year. also i tried out ring game play but am not as good. in the past week i hit a low in my bankroll so i can only play 1$ buy ins..

[valenzuela]

mmm....how old are you?

[treeofwisdom7]

lol.. geez 22 and i work full time so i try to play 2-4 hours a day.. yah i know im not that good... give me another year on 2+2

[vindikation]

2 table the $11 SnG's or 4 table the $25 NL games. They should both be enough to keep you "not bored" and you should be able to beat these games if you pay attention to what's going on in this forum.

[Newt_Buggs]

You might want to consider hiring a coach to help you out. If you're willing to put this much time into it I bet it would be more profitable to just get an experienced player to really work 1 on 1 with you to get you out of the $5s

[freemoney]

no offense but if u cant beat the 5 buy in sit n gos naturally u will never be a winning player.

[treeofwisdom7]

i have a slight positive roi for 5$ sit n gos.. maybe i'll never be a winning poker player... in addition to playing everyday i spend a few hours thinking, reading , and talking on these forums..

where can i find a coach/? i live in hawaii

[Voltron87]

It is not easy to become a winning poker player. It takes a long time. It is one thing to understand what to do, it is entirely another to do it day in and day out and churn out a consistent profit. It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound.

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]

where can i find a coach/? i live in hawaii

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about coaching, but you don't need to find meet up with someone physically. I think its traditional for you to simply send hand histories to the coach, who will then look them over and give you in depth feedback and help you along/advise you with your future games. In return the coach gets a share of your profits while teaching you. Anyone who has coached before or knows about it want to enlighten us on the standard procedure and pay?

[freemoney]

i disagree, a person with high levels of intelligence could easily be a winning player within months.

[ZebraAss]

[ QUOTE ]
no offense but if u cant beat the 5 buy in sit n gos naturally u will never be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say that?

EDIT: I mind if you stayed in the NL/PL sections of 2+2, your posts are much too insightful for us STT'ers.

[treeofwisdom7]

maybe later i'll just post my whole strategy and everyone can tell me what they agree and disagree with. i think my poker smarts is greater than the average person altho i havent outgrown slanskys books, and harringtons one, still have to read all of them a couple times to get them down

[Newt_Buggs]

I just don't know what to say. You play for a couple of hours everyday and sound very serious about the studying the game but still can't beat the $5s? Voltron is right that its much harder to become a winning player than this forum makes it seem, but you seem to have the discipline and determination beyond most people. I really do respect that, I think that if I had put in this much effort into poker and still wasn't winning at the $5s I would have pulled my hair out by now. I'de definitly encourage you to post some things on your basic strategy because you probably have some fundamental flaws in your game that you are probably overlooking. (you've read over everything in shadow's first post right?)

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not easy to become a winning poker player. It takes a long time. It is one thing to understand what to do, it is entirely another to do it day in and day out and churn out a consistent profit. It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

It took me less than a month.

Seriously.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe later i'll just post my whole strategy and everyone can tell me what they agree and disagree with. i think my poker smarts is greater than the average person altho i havent outgrown slanskys books, and harringtons one, still have to read all of them a couple times to get them down

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of us have completely outgrown those books, probably almost everyone had to read them a few times to get anywhere near their full value out of them, and probably all of us should keep reviewing them every so often for as long as we play poker. Those books aren't super quick reads, and they aren't shallow.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not easy to become a winning poker player. It takes a long time. It is one thing to understand what to do, it is entirely another to do it day in and day out and churn out a consistent profit. It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

It took me less than a month.

Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a month, you didn't know if you were a winner; you just knew you won. Most people who get interested in poker started out winners, or they wouldn't have kept going.

[Mr_J]

"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[Blarg]

An anecdote of this nature cannot possibly prove a point. It remains an anecdote. And because of that, in a sense is actually changing the subject.

The question is not, Would someone who started winning right away be willing to admit it?

The question is more along the lines of, Will the average person easily become a winner, preferably with a reasonable ROI?

Actually, the average person loses money in poker. That some people do not, and even learn quickly how to win, just confirms that there are some people with more ability than others.

It doesn't mean the subject is necessarily particularly easy for everyone to learn, just because it is for some. There are 10 year old kids who can do graduate level math work, but does that make calculus easy? No, Not to hear them tell it, though. And I'm not saying that poker is calculus, for beter or worse.

There's no real textbook or plan for learning SNG's. You have to stumble upon ideas, which everyone does in a different order, and sometimes modify them to a personal play style, and keep changing them as you figure more and more things out, and puzzle out for yourself when they do and don't apply and when you have to change them for different opponents, all while hopefully not taking too many wrong turns and completely screwing yourself up or decimating your bankroll and destroying your confidence and willingness to keep playing the game.

It's a very individual process for everyone, and getting started off just a little differently, or with a different level of talent, is going to lead to a different journey, one sometimes more or less successful than the next.

I really don't think one guy saying poker is easy has all that much more value than another guy saying poker is hard. Personally, I think for most people it takes a while to come to any workable conclusions at all, and then, their conclusions apply mostly just to them.

[treeofwisdom7]

wow it sounds like some of you are really talented players.. i think i may have some kind of flaw in my basic playing strategy. one thing i think it could be is my starting hand requirements.. maybe i play too tight

[Newt_Buggs]

Yes, its easy for us to learn SnGs and we were able to get rolling in a month, but (not to brag) we really are tallented at this game. Have you ever tried to teach people who haven't played or have played very little poker in their life? I don't mean just teach the rules, but spend at least a couple of hours really try to teach some strategy and explain "self evident" truths. Chances are they didn't get it. When I tried this it made me realize how easily the strategies just integrated into my game naturally. I never realized that most of the strategies and theories of the game that were very easy for me to understand are difficult for most people to grasp. Most people can't naturally analyze the wide variety of situations faced in poker, but I have faith that they can be taught.

[Blarg]

I'm of the same opinion. I think most anyone could be taught to become at least a satisfactorily moderate winner at poker. But hauling yourself up by your own bootstraps starting from nothing, just teaching yourself, is much harder.

[Mr_J]

"Have you ever tried to teach people who haven't played or have played very little poker in their life?"

Yes, when learning sngs /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I agree that everyone will learn at different rates. I learnt quickly, partly because I was able to and partly because I HAD to.

I guess I was responding to the point "it isn't as easy as these guys make it out to be". I should've just said that "easy" is relative, but it is simple.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
i think i may have some kind of flaw in my basic playing strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

I play the 5's and the occasional 10 due to my current BR. Up until about a month ago it was hit or miss. I'd go up and down, win a few, bust out a few, finish ITM barely, bust a few more, etc. Then all of a sudden, all the info I'd been processing from reading and the forum suddenly made became clear. Early play, position, bubble play, HU play and primarily patience came together.

[pergesu]

I started playing SNGs because my buddy said I was way too aggressive for low-limit ring games, but that it could translate well to SNGs.

Needless to say, I like the guy a lot more now.

[Domer]

My suggestion is to stick with the $5 tourneys, but cash out that PP account and move on over to Poker Stars, which takes only a $.50 rake. If you play 11 SnG per day, you save yourself one buyin on the rake alone. In addition, the additional chips and slower blind structure at PS may fit better with your current strategy, as you mentioned that your hand requirements may be "too tight".

The second piece of advice I have, and this has been extremely important to me, is to pay close attention to the stakes of the game for which people are giving advice on this forum. For example, if you are taking advice from a hand history from a $215 SnG, that may not necessarily apply directly to you. The same goes for the Slansky and Harrington books.

In the end, I think almost anyone can become a winning player with enough time and effort. Hang in there.

[multifast1]

Without knowing anything about your play strategy.. only from what's you've said in this thread.. I think it might be your bankroll/agressiveness leading to the wrong strategy. I say that because you've been playing for a year now and only 1 or 2 tabling the $5+1 Sng's primarily.. Geez. I mean that's a good way to start but after a few months I would be moving to at the least the $10+1 tables, especially if only single tabling! I mean how low is your bankroll?? You did say you have a positive ROI on the 5's over that year right? By now you should have more than a sufficient bankroll to jump. The 10's have the same vig and about the same level of play as the 5's!!

I dunno. I just think you haven't made the financial commitment to be successful. If you're 22, have a full time job, and are spending the 2-4 hours per day playing PLUS spending additional time reading 2+2 and books... there's no reason you shouldn't be at least beating the 5's and 10's after a year.. if not crushing them.

I would either reconsider your financial commitment to winning or concede to just playing for fun and dumping in a few $ for entertainment.. Either way good luck and don't stop learning.

[Iamafish]

Ya know, ive been thinking a lot about this. I dont really know where I should be at this point. I play everything right now, limit, NL, SnG's, MTT.

My limit game is sorta screwed up becuase I worked on my NL game a lot. What Im trying to figure out is if SnG's are more profitable that NL, or even limit.

I don't see them more profitable in the low buy-ins than limit for sure, and it seems even at the higher buy-ins its still doesnt look as great agiants limit (TIME).

A winning 30/60 player can make way more than a player at the 215's. Its just from what I heard from some 215 players about there swings and how long they play. What im looking at most is $ per hour. A 215 winning player can 4-8 table for 6 hours and break even or lose (not everyone, not always) . A 30/60 player will break even or lose after 2 hours, but look how much time was only spent (plenty left to work it back up, and very possible if you're winner). Also all the post i hear about 50 buy in swings and all, no way. Sure you get large swings in limit but its definatly not 50% of a roll for a WINNING player. Look how big a 50 buy in swing is, and how long it’ll take to make it back.

The only way I can really see 215’s being more profitable is if you one table and win first a lot. 1000’s bucks a day. If you 4-table, win 1 first, and lose the rest you get a nice $140 profit, awsome. WTF? The thing Im getting at is how much TIME it takes to make money. What you guys think about this, even the winners, what are you comments?

Ive been thinking a lot about variance, and in limit, if you are a winning player, I think it is definatly lower than SnG's. I totally disagree with everyone saying its lower in SnG’s. Ya its lower in the low buy-ins but you make more in Limit or No limit in lower buyins (if you can play SnG’s you shouuld be able to make it in NL).

Also look at the amount of time you'll have to play. If your better at SnG's then thats great. Im just trying to make a post about deciding where to play, and what is the MOST profitable if your pretty good at everything.

If you have the roll to play 215's you definatly have the roll to play 30/60.

Also, to the original poster....you can 3 table NL but you can’t 4-6 table SnG’s? I find that very strange that you can’t fold fold fold fold push...but you can do a million things at 3 NL tables at once? You should try 4 tabling SnG’s (once you start really beating them though).

Im also ADD big time. Well, sometimes more than other...and sometimes I just let it get to me (like right now, thats why this post is so messy). I think im getting worse, this shits bad. I need a perscription. Anyway, what do you guys think is best if your ADD.

I four tabled SnG’s for the first time a couple weeks ago and found that I was MORE concentrated on my game. I can only play 1 table in NL. And my limit game got bad but I think i can 2-3 table it fairly.

I know my post is all screwy but id like to continue. Please leave your comments/thoughts about this topic.

[AliasMrJones]

2 suggestions:

1. Play the $10+1 rather than the $5+1. You're paying double rake which will affect your ability to make money and your ROI.

2. Read. Study. Really. I would suggest starting with a basic hold 'em book, even if it is a limit hold 'em book. After you learn the basic hold 'em concepts, Harrington on Hold 'Em is, IMHO, very good for the low buy-in SnG's. Read, play, repeat.

[Mr_J]

"What Im trying to figure out is if SnG's are more profitable that NL, or even limit. "

Ultimately? No I don't think SNGs will have the earning potential of limit/NL ring. Simply because you can play for MUCH higher stakes than sngs. Steps have the highest, but I'm not sure they play reguarly enough (ie you can 4+ table them??). However, sngs will earn more for a specific bankroll and have lower variance. You can't compare a 30/60 player to a $215 player since the ring player will need double the BR of the snger.

"Ive been thinking a lot about variance, and in limit, if you are a winning player, I think it is definatly lower than SnG's"

Wrong.

"but you make more in Limit or No limit in lower buyins"

Wrong again. 8 tabling the $22s requires less than 1k but will earn a decent player over $50US an hr. I doubt 1/2 LHE or 50NL will do that.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree, a person with high levels of intelligence could easily be a winning player within months.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is one thing to understand what to do, it is another to churn out profit several hours a day regularly. The focus and approach you need to be a winning player is not negligible.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.

[ZebraAss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

...relying on it for income, when you have never played before? Hmm...

[Iamafish]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't compare a 30/60 player to a $215 player since the ring player will need double the BR of the snger.


[/ QUOTE ]

20K is enough for 30/60

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not bullshit.
You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective.

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not bullshit.
You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that after 50 SNG i belive very few would be displined enough to play thight in the begining of an SNG. The thinking of an new SNG player, getting KQ off UTG hand 8 off and SNG:

"I have got crap so far. Here is KQ off! Lets see if i can get something going with this monster!" 30 sec later they join another SNG.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not bullshit.
You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really know if you've understood and are applying concepts with a great deal of reliability by the time 50 tourneys have been played or if you've just been on the positive side of variance.

It's the many games you play AFTER those 50 that will start telling you a lot more about how sharp you really might be vs. how sharp you just think you are.

People are probably not doing themselves any favors by thinking that after 50 games, their losing streak reflects their long-term ROI or their winning streak reflects their longer-term ROI.

That 500 number that people use when talking about beginning to get a handle on what your profitability at a level is really like is just an arbitrary number, but it's sure a lot better than 50 is. 50 is just eight hours of play for a four-tabler. It's stretching it a lot to say poker will tell you all that much after only 8 hours except what those 8 hours were like.