Profitability of SnGs

[durron597]

So I was thinking about it today, and this is what I realized. Say you have a ~20% ROI at the 10+1 level. This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit (which is very low stakes for limit, and an extremely low winrate for that level). Thus there's really no point playing low stakes SnGs compared to the profitability of limit ring.

Extrapolate this to the $55s. The profitability of them is about $12.50/hr (per table) with the same ROI assumed before. This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100 - which I would think is much easier - limit games don't start getting tough until $5/$10. But then maybe SnGs don't start getting tough until $109?

I think I'm going to start playing some ring games for awhile.

[Karak567]

I wish I could be successful at limit but I suck pretty hardcore at it.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100 - which I would think is much easier - limit games don't start getting tough until $5/$10.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/6 isn't as easy as you might think. Yes, anyone can destroy the .5/1 for 5-6 BB/100. 1/2 is tougher, due to all the rocks, but still very beatable -- easily for 2BB/100. 2/4 is wild, so variance is a bitch, but again 2-4BB/100 is doable. 3/6 is when is starts to get tougher. 2BB/100 is very good.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm going to start playing some ring games for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly wouldn't discourage you if you're interested in it. I switched to SnGs because limit was as exciting as watching paint dry.

[CaptSensible]

For some reason I'm horrible at ring games online. I do much better at ring games live. One reason why I think I do better at the sngs is the "goal" oriented aspect. Much easier for me to stay focused.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't discourage you if you're interested in it. I switched to SnGs because limit was as exciting as watching paint dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually going to play NL ring. I just gave limit numbers because they are more rigorous and I happen to know them.

[LeVoodoo]

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason I'm horrible at ring games online. I do much better at ring games live. One reason why I think I do better at the sngs is the "goal" oriented aspect. Much easier for me to stay focused.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto every word.

[runner4life7]

"This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100"

Wouldn't it need to be 4 BB/100? Also, I think it is probably easier to play sit n gos 4 tabling and 8 tabling as opposed to ring games, I could be wrong though as I have only 4 tabled .5/1 to clear a bonus but am not a limit pro by any means.

I think with the lesser variance, higher payout(IMO and with my ability), and easier to multitable the SNGs are more profitable. But I wish you the best of luck in the ring games taht you play, whether limit or NL.

[lastchance]

I think ring games would be easier to multitable. No shorthanded tables to worry about.

[runner4life7]

yeah im going to change my mind on that, I think that SNGs take less thinking and im lazy so thats why i like them, that probably motivated all my other 'reasons' for sngs.

edit: me leaving out words

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I think ring games would be easier to multitable. No shorthanded tables to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm terrible at multitabling shorthanded. But then again, I don't play on Party/skin.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Extrapolate this to the $55s. The profitability of them is about $12.50/hr (per table) with the same ROI assumed before. This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100 - which I would think is much easier - limit games don't start getting tough until $5/$10. But then maybe SnGs don't start getting tough until $109?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few problems with your assumptions.

a) a 20% ROI at the 50s is quite difficult to achieve. Maybe the top 10% of 2+2ers playing the 50s or higher can do it (and I think that number is high).

b) $12.50 one tabling is about 2BB/hour not /100 ... there are about 60 hand/hour so this is much closer to 3.5BB/100 which is probably doable by a great player but extremely difficult.

Of course these 2 errors probably cancel out a bit, but I'd also suggest that the 50s are a slightly bigger game than 3/6 considering the usual suggested BR requirements.

[chisness]

A few things:

1) Limit seems much harder to multitable than SNGs. In SNGs, many decisions are automatic and very easy. You're also, especially on Party, involved in relatively very few postflop hands. Postflop hands are what take up lots of time.

2) In limit, steals are very tough because you're involved postflop with an often mediocre hand. In a SNG, you're usually just dragging the bar over and pressing All In.

3) One issue with SNGs is that reads are much tougher, especially when multitabling. You only have a few hands to get a read on a player, whereas at limit you may be playing with someone for hours.

4) 3-6 seems to be fairly equivalent to 50 SNGs in terms of hourly rate (about $8 each for a solid player). However, I think the variance and bankroll requirements for 3-6 are both worse.

5) SNGs, at least for me, are much more fun. Also, when a bad beat comes around, you lose your buyin, not 10 big bets!

[FatalError]

i make 200$/hr at SnG's on average... I don't really want to even consider the absurd amount of variance i'd have to deal with to make that in cash games

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
I switched to SnGs because limit was as exciting as watching paint dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

My feelings exactly.

[igotBlackJak]

[ QUOTE ]
i make 200$/hr at SnG's on average... I don't really want to even consider the absurd amount of variance i'd have to deal with to make that in cash games

[/ QUOTE ]

that's sick..

[freemoney]

at what level and how many tables?

and i think this claim ranges from highly unlikely to impossible at any level below 215s and then it would just be very hard

[durron597]

So after two bad beats for most of my stack I think I'm going to go back to tourneys for awhile. I felt like it was impossible to get lots of chips in the middle and even when I did I would get drawn out on. KK vs. 55, he flops a set. QQ all in on a JTxx turn, he has KQ river is A. I flop a flush with 75h in the BB, flop is 234h. I bet the flop, pot is pretty large on the turn and he calls a 3/4 bet with Ah2x, river is 9h and I can't not pay off (check/call) his last few chips when the pot is so big.

In an SnG, you can be tight in the beginning and pick your spots, and then build your stack when the blinds get big. In ring, the blinds never get big, and you have to get paid off a few dollars at a time in small pots without picking the wrong spot and getting your whole stack picked off. At least that's how it is on Stars.

So much for my excursion into ring...

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
at what level and how many tables?

and i think this claim ranges from highly unlikely to impossible at any level below 215s and then it would just be very hard

[/ QUOTE ]

At $215's its DEFINITELY possible.

[runner4life7]

hearing that from you just makes me want to play more and more to get better and build the BR, because i think i speak for everyone when i say i want to make 200/hr, I've been at about 30/hr so far this summer at the 10s-30s. I would cry if i even made 75-100

[Mr_J]

You're not comparing them the right way. You should be looking at the BR needed. For the BR to play 3/6 you could play the $55s. 8 tabling 3/6 for 1.5bb/hr/table is $72 an hr. If you were 8tabling $55s, you'd only need to hit 9% ROI to achieve the same result. I imagine 9% ROI at $55s is easier than 3bb/100 at 3/6.

[Mr_J]

If you can 8 table in sets and hit 7% ROI you're there.

[curtains]

Wouldn't that just be about 120-160 an hour? (160 because of the rakeback)

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you have a ~20% ROI at the 10+1 level. This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you comparing a limit player with a clue to a SNG player with no clue?

Lori

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Say you have a ~20% ROI at the 10+1 level. This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why are you comparing a limit player with a clue to a SNG player with no clue?

Lori


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm not understanding your post, but are you saying a 20% ROI player at the 10+1 level doesn't have a clue, and a 2.5BB/100 0.50/1 limit player does? I would think it is the exact opposite.I would at least assume that a 20% ROI player at the 10+1s has some semblance of a clue as to what they are doing.

[Mr_J]

You're right, I was saying 10 sngs an hr but up at the $215s a set probally takes close to an hr??

$150, $200...same thing to me. More than I earn now so I'd be pretty happy with either.

That reminds me, wonder how raptors 12tabling the 109s is going.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm not understanding your post, but are you saying a 20% ROI player at the 10+1 level doesn't have a clue, and a 2.5BB/100 0.50/1 limit player does? I would think it is the exact opposite.I would at least assume that a 20% ROI player at the 10+1s has some semblance of a clue as to what they are doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm saying.

I also don't understand why you are talking in terms of /100 hands when hourly rate is what is important.

I'd say that you can make $2.5/hr at .5/1 LHE and $5 per hour at $11 SNGs

Lori

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm saying.

I also don't understand why you are talking in terms of /100 hands when hourly rate is what is important.

I'd say that you can make $2.5/hr at .5/1 LHE and $5 per hour at $11 SNGs

Lori


[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking it terms of /100 hands because that is what the OP was using to compare a 10+1 SNG to a 0.50/1 limit ring game. So in $/hr it would be $2.50/hour assuming 100 hands an hour. It looks like the OP was using about 50 minutes for the length of time of a SNG to get a 20% ROI to correspond to $2.50/hr. Using this length of time one would need about a 38% ROI to make $5 per hour. You actually think the skill level of a player making a 40% return is equivalent to a limit ring game player making 2.5BB/100?
It seems to me that a 10+1 SNG player that is able to maintain a 38% ROI would be among the top players at that level where as a player making 2.5BB/100 at $0.50/$1 won't even be close to a top tier player at their respective limit. Maybe I have a very skewed perspective on limit ring games seeing as I haven't played them in a while.

[Mr_J]

"That's what I'm saying."

Well that's pretty harsh. If they're a new player I'd say they're doing ok.

"I also don't understand why you are talking in terms of /100 hands when hourly rate is what is important."

Doesn't really make a difference. Hourly rate is just 60% of bb/100 x # tables.

"I'd say that you can make $2.5/hr at .5/1 LHE and $5 per hour at $11 SNGs"

BUT, if you're good enough to make 30% ROI at the $11s, you should be playing the $22s or $33s /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a 10+1 SNG player that is able to maintain a 38% ROI would be among the top players at that level where as a player making 2.5BB/100 at $0.50/$1

[/ QUOTE ]

Please use hourly rates, I know you think it's clever to inflate numbers and use /100, but it really isn't.

A typical $11 SNG takes around 40 minutes, and a very good player will get an ROI of over 40%, which is significantly more than $6/hr

I don't know for sure, but I suspect a very good player simply cannot make $6 an hour at .5/1 LHE.

To those on 20% ROI in the $11s, yes you're doing fine, but you're probably pretty new.
It takes time to get better.

I've played .5/1 LHE for three years and I can't earn $3/hr.

Lori

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not comparing them the right way. You should be looking at the BR needed. For the BR to play 3/6 you could play the $55s. 8 tabling 3/6 for 1.5bb/hr/table is $72 an hr. If you were 8tabling $55s, you'd only need to hit 9% ROI to achieve the same result. I imagine 9% ROI at $55s is easier than 3bb/100 at 3/6.

[/ QUOTE ]

MAYBE 3 players in the world that 8 table 3-6 are pulling 3 bb/100. MAYBE. more than a few people are pulling 10% 8 tabling the 55s. your post is fairly dead on.

holla

[lorinda]

I was talking it terms of /100 hands because that is what the OP was using to compare a 10+1 SNG to a 0.50/1 limit ring game

The OP uses hourly rate and /100 to mean the same thing, it's quite a ridiculous post really.

Lori

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think ring games would be easier to multitable. No shorthanded tables to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

it really depends on the player. in ring games, if you are playing full ring, 8 tabling is a joke. you can play super tight and grind out yer .75 bb/100 and have lowish variance and be happy. however, a lot of people think sngs are really easy to multitable. i dont have ANY trouble multitabling sngs, as just about every move is automatic. its one of the easiest forms of poker to play, and therefore can be heavily multitabled. in a ring game, you have to actually make decisions, and think on occasion about what the best play is. in a sng, its generally fairly easy. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
So I was thinking about it today, and this is what I realized. Say you have a ~20% ROI at the 10+1 level. This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit (which is very low stakes for limit, and an extremely low winrate for that level). Thus there's really no point playing low stakes SnGs compared to the profitability of limit ring.

Extrapolate this to the $55s. The profitability of them is about $12.50/hr (per table) with the same ROI assumed before. This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100 - which I would think is much easier - limit games don't start getting tough until $5/$10. But then maybe SnGs don't start getting tough until $109?

I think I'm going to start playing some ring games for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

good luck having a 20% roi 8 tabling at anything above the 22s, and THATS a huge stretch.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
in a sng, its generally fairly easy. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it more difficult than craps, pai gow or blackjack?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
and i think this claim ranges from highly unlikely to impossible at any level below 215s and then it would just be very hard

[/ QUOTE ]

yea its POSSIBLE to do playing the 109s, but only then its doable running 12 continuously. at a 10% return. which is tough.

[ QUOTE ]
At $215's its DEFINITELY possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, yea. 8 tabling continuously you get in around 12-14 sngs per hour. its definitely possible. not many people can do it, but there are those that do. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
i make 200$/hr at SnG's on average... I don't really want to even consider the absurd amount of variance i'd have to deal with to make that in cash games

[/ QUOTE ]

not to sound like a spoil sport, but what is yer sample size, how many tables are you playing, and how many do you get in per day/week. very few people are able to maintain 200/hr. actually, VERY few people can. dont expect a sick tear over 1k sngs to go on forever. holla

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Please use hourly rates, I know you think it's clever to inflate numbers and use /100, but it really isn't.

A typical $11 SNG takes around 40 minutes, and a very good player will get an ROI of over 40%, which is significantly more than $6/hr

I don't know for sure, but I suspect a very good player simply cannot make $6 an hour at .5/1 LHE.

To those on 20% ROI in the $11s, yes you're doing fine, but you're probably pretty new.
It takes time to get better.

I've played .5/1 LHE for three years and I can't earn $3/hr.

Lori


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not using hourly rate because it is completely irrelevent when talking about the original post. The OP was comparing a 20% ROI SNGer and a 2.5BB/100 limit ring game player. He didn't even mention hourly rate anywhere in his post.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori




[/ QUOTE ]

OK i guess he does talk in terms of $/hour, but merely to extrapolate the data from SNGs to ring games. In his original post he uses 100 hands = 1 hour, and 1 SNG = approximately 50 minutes. This will give you 2.55BB/100 = $2.50/hour and a 20% ROI equal $2.50/hour. When you did you calculation to determine the hourly rate for a SNGer with a certain ROI you used 40 minutes per tournament. This change in time will actually could allow for nearly a 10% drop in ROI to obtain the same hourly rate. Using your number I can see why you would not agree with the OP. Regardless of that fact I still find it hard to believe that you consider 20% ROI player at the 10+1 to be clueless. Once again I don't have much experience at that level so maybe there acually are some people making a 40% return at that level, but I definitley haven't seen them. I just know that is impossible to maintain at the 50s and I can't believe that it would be much easier at the 10s. I guess I must be underestimating the level of stupidity of a typical 10+1 player.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a limit ring game player, I always saw limit players talk about #BB/100 and #BB/hr and I made the incorrect assumption that they are the same thing.

I really appreciate all the posts in this thread and I am going to go through and run the numbers again (now that I have better numbers) and see what conclusions I come to.

Thanks for the clarifications all.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont have ANY trouble multitabling sngs, as just about every move is automatic. its one of the easiest forms of poker to play, and therefore can be heavily multitabled. in a ring game, you have to actually make decisions, and think on occasion about what the best play is. in a sng, its generally fairly easy. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say this is true for Party/skin SnGs or all SnGs? I don't find this to be true, but then again I play with lower blinds and larger stacks.

[astarck]

My hourly rate is roughly $2,000/hr if you extrapolate from my last 5 minutes played.

I think I will quit my day job.

[Jay36489]

How do most people multitable SNGs? Start however many you want to play at once and let them finish? Or do most people just play them continuously?

[durron597]

Did you just win 3 $215s in that period?

[jeffraider]

This is probably a dumb question, but why play $22s at all? Good players can do 20-25% ROI at the $22s, and 40%ish at the $11s, wouldn't the $11s be just as profitable but require much less bankroll?

[Mr_J]

"This is probably a dumb question, but why play $22s at all? Good players can do 20-25% ROI at the $22s, and 40%ish at the $11s, wouldn't the $11s be just as profitable but require much less bankroll?"

Someone who can hit 40% at the $11s could probally hit 30% at the $22s, so no.

[Moonsugar]

I have multitabled hundreds of thousands of hands of 3/6 and thousands of $55 SnG. To get the hourly winrate you describe is so much easier via SnG it is hard for me to even compare them. I was never the best limit player, my winrates never exceeded 2bb/100 by a lot so maybe I am not the best to comment, but adding tables and maintaining anything over 2bb/hour is quite a feat. SnGs are so much simpler than ring games it is not even funny.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I have multitabled hundreds of thousands of hands of 3/6 and thousands of $55 SnG. To get the hourly winrate you describe is so much easier via SnG it is hard for me to even compare them. I was never the best limit player, my winrates never exceeded 2bb/100 by a lot so maybe I am not the best to comment, but adding tables and maintaining anything over 2bb/hour is quite a feat. SnGs are so much simpler than ring games it is not even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, is this a Party SnG or all SnGs for you? Also how does Rakeback factor into your numbers? 25% rakeback should be an increase of something like 2.5% ROI, at least at the $11 level...

[lorinda]

SnGs are so much simpler than ring games it is not even funny.

They are just as complex, but the reward for playing well is better in SNGs.

Lori

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably a dumb question, but why play $22s at all? Good players can do 20-25% ROI at the $22s, and 40%ish at the $11s, wouldn't the $11s be just as profitable but require much less bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Long term, I don't really think an ROI in the 40s is sustainable even at the 11s. Are you mixing up ITM and ROI? I have an ITM in the 11s of 44% but my ROI is 35% and I feel like I'm killing the game. An ROI in the 40s, for me at least, would be like running a 4 minute mile. If somebody was good enought to be over 40% ROI, I think that they should be thinking about moving past the 22s and into something even higher.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, is this a Party SnG or all SnGs for you? Also how does Rakeback factor into your numbers? 25% rakeback should be an increase of something like 2.5% ROI, at least at the $11 level...

[/ QUOTE ]

Party is the benchmark when using hourly rate because the games are so fast.

Although you can attain a much higher ROI on some other sites, the games are way too long to keep the hourly rate the same.

This is why the other sites are good for people with a small bankroll who are more interested in keeping ROR low and Party is the better site for those trying to earn the maximum hourly rate.

Lori

[lorinda]

Long term, I don't really think an ROI in the 40s is sustainable even at the 11s.

It is.

I may have led people into believing it is easy, it isn't.

Lori

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Long term, I don't really think an ROI in the 40s is sustainable even at the 11s.

It is.

I may have led people into believing it is easy, it isn't.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I should've said that I don't know if it is sustainable for ME. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I've been near 40% for my past 200 games or so, but I just chalked it up to variance. Same old question that everyone asks, but at what point should I consider moving up? Currently I 3 table at the 11s and the bankroll requirements of moving up to the 22s isn't really an issue. Maybe this is stupid, but I don't want to move up without feeling like I've "paid my dues". I've only been playing seriously for about a year...

[MentalCombat]

only a year? haha, I'm on the 55's now and only been playing seriously for like 2 months.

[lorinda]

Currently I 3 table at the 11s and the bankroll requirements of moving up to the 22s isn't really an issue

Play two $11s and a $22 for a while and see how you get on?

My guess is that with your observational skills you'll be fine.

Lori

[Moonsugar]

these are all at party and do not include rakeback

[runner4life7]

You are more than ready for the 22s, and probably the 33s in a short while too.

[LesJ]

<<<I've played .5/1 LHE for three years and I can't earn $3/hr.>>>

Interesting point, Lorinda. Here is a concern/question that has recently came to my mind. I was in Vegas last week (placed in the mid 600's on Friday's event btw) and played in a few tourneys while I was there. I had NEVER played a live cash game, but it seems if you want anything to do at all before or after tournies, cash games are the way to go. I was thinking about working on my cash game so I would have more to do "live" the next time I end up in Vegas, but you have me questioning that thought process. In a short period of time, I have become an above average tourney and sit-n-go player, but I absolutely STINK at ring games. I don't acheive very well and I really don't even enjoy it as much.
Any thoughts?
Les

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely STINK at ring games. I don't acheive very well and I really don't even enjoy it as much.
Any thoughts?


[/ QUOTE ]

They are very different games.

I use bonuses on sites to learn different skills.

For instance, I've worked off three $100+ bonuses this week at .5/1 limit o8. I think I won a little, but I got paid $400 or so for my lessons.

In the age of the internet, it is no longer as crucial to be well versed in every game, but you never know what tomorrow's craze will be.... If everyone starts playing triple draw lowball, I might be in trouble.... so I try to have an understanding of everything that I could at least build on if I ever have to.

At the moment, we are in the box seat. SNG play is the immediate future, but who knows what will be next.

Lori

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone starts playing triple draw lowball, I might be in trouble....

[/ QUOTE ]

*shudder*

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably a dumb question, but why play $22s at all? Good players can do 20-25% ROI at the $22s, and 40%ish at the $11s, wouldn't the $11s be just as profitable but require much less bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

you show me a player that multitables the 11s for 40%, and ill show you my nuts. holla

[Mr_J]

"and ill show you my nut"

You even got hair down their yet?? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ If everyone starts playing triple draw lowball, I might be in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read D.Negreanu's chapter in super system and stay off of Irie's tables.

[microbet]

http://www.cheeseypoker.co.uk/static/images/1035139574683_lorinda%5B1%5D.gif

I don't want to see your nuts.

[Bigwig]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned the following, but:

You should be able to play about 1.3 tournaments per hour--not one.

And you can't play 100 hands/hour in a typical ring game. More like 65-70. That seriously messes up your calculations.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if anyone has mentioned the following, but:

You should be able to play about 1.3 tournaments per hour--not one.

And you can't play 100 hands/hour in a typical ring game. More like 65-70. That seriously messes up your calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, lorinda already informed me of this. Thank you for mentioning it again.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Long term, I don't really think an ROI in the 40s is sustainable even at the 11s.

It is.

I may have led people into believing it is easy, it isn't.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I would like to see someone provide some of their results. Are you talking about single tabling? I assume not, because I can't think of a reason why any good player would single table the 11s for extended periods of time. If there's a player out there who does 40% ROI 4+ tabling the 11s for a significant sample size, I'd be very surprised. I've read these claims before, but I've never seen anyone provide the statistics. And I'm not just defending my measly 29%, I'm really curious about who these gods of poker are.

Edit: I should add, I think it is very possible during some times of the day/week to crush the game for 35%+. Waiting until Friday night to play isn't practical though, and isn't really useful to the discussion of hourly rate. The games during other times of the week are not what they used to be; they don't always just beat themselves anymore.

-Phoenix

[UMTerp]

It doesn't make any sense to multitable the $11's at 40%. If somebody could really do that, they could have a bankroll for the $22's in like three days, and they could certainly beat that game too.

[Big Limpin']

I believe it is possible at certain sites, but not party. I can show you a spreadsheet with 34% @ 11s over amost 2 years at pokerrrom. Sample size >10k games.
And im not the best player in these parts by far. I believe those who could hit >40% would not be playing the 11s though.
But just wanted to throw my vote in taht it IS possible, i believe, although only in a 1500 game.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make any sense to multitable the $11's at 40%. If somebody could really do that, they could have a bankroll for the $22's in like three days, and they could certainly beat that game too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant (although it still makes plenty more sense than single tabling the 11s at any ROI). Plenty of people seem to fervently attest that it's possible. My question is simply: has anyone ever done it? Or is it all conjecture?

-Phoenix

[UMTerp]

That was kind of my point. Why would anyone do it?

I'm of the opinion that 40% could be achieved by the very best players, but it would be a pointless exercise to play enough SNGs to prove it when they could be playing higher and making more money.

[lorinda]

I've done it, but I don't feel the need to keep repeating the reasons why.

Everything said in this thread about moving up is fine for amateur players.

Lori

[Moonsugar]

I sweated a friend yesterday playing an $11. If the play that I saw was typical I would believe 60%+ is possible. LOL. It was amazing. 8 huge nonthinking holes on the table.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I sweated a friend yesterday playing an $11. If the play that I saw was typical I would believe 60%+ is possible. LOL. It was amazing. 8 huge nonthinking holes on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is still plenty of luck involved. AA does lose to A3 every so often...

[Blarg]

That's the factor that seems to be left out of a lot of threads postulating or claiming huge ROI's.

Even poor players actually DO get good cards sometimes -- maybe better than yours OMG!, just like even great players sometimes get miserable cards. And even poor players start out with bad cards and get lucky. Being a good player isn't enough, and having good cards isn't enough, sometimes. It sure as hell helps a lot, but nobody too big to get taken down at the card tables. It's going to happen to anyone and everyone, inescapably.

If poker wasn't subject to big swings, there wouldn't be any fish to feed the sharks. It's a swingy game, and that alone is enough to keep the sharks from posting insanely dominating stats for truly long periods of time. The long run in poker is so long that anomalies can exist for a very long time, but the universe tends to unfold as it should, to steal a line from Harold and Kumar Go To Whitecastle.

[Moonsugar]

Yes, I understand. I was joking about the 60%. The play was incredibly bad though.

[smb394]

One thing that I think has only been briefly touched on is the role of bonuses. At least on the Party and skins network, these clearable playing LHE, but not SNGs. This of course does add to BB/100.

One real problem converting from BB/100 to BB/Hr. when looking at limit is that you really will not be on all 4 or all 8 tables for a full hour always. Taking time to practice good game selection, and then little things like waiting to post, pissbreak, etc. lower the hands per hour.

FWIW, I primarily 4-table $2/4 and $3/6 ring LHE.

Good discussion. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think has only been briefly touched on is the role of bonuses. At least on the Party and skins network, these clearable playing LHE, but not SNGs. This of course does add to BB/100.

One real problem converting from BB/100 to BB/Hr. when looking at limit is that you really will not be on all 4 or all 8 tables for a full hour always. Taking time to practice good game selection, and then little things like waiting to post, pissbreak, etc. lower the hands per hour.

FWIW, I primarily 4-table $2/4 and $3/6 ring LHE.

Good discussion. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

All Party bonuses are raked hands, not based on Party Points? Or do you not get Party points for SnGs?

[smb394]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think has only been briefly touched on is the role of bonuses. At least on the Party and skins network, these clearable playing LHE, but not SNGs. This of course does add to BB/100.

One real problem converting from BB/100 to BB/Hr. when looking at limit is that you really will not be on all 4 or all 8 tables for a full hour always. Taking time to practice good game selection, and then little things like waiting to post, pissbreak, etc. lower the hands per hour.

FWIW, I primarily 4-table $2/4 and $3/6 ring LHE.

Good discussion. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

All Party bonuses are raked hands, not based on Party Points? Or do you not get Party points for SnGs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all bonuses are by raked hands (i.e. SNGs don't count). But you DO get Party Points for SNGs.