300 $5.50 SNGs analysis - thoughts please?

[keithb]

Here are my numbers. They are good, but...variance has me concerned about a few things.

total won....$2,133
total bet.....$1,650
Plus/Minus..$483
ITM%.........48%
ROI%........29%

1st 100 SNGs - played exclusively at Pacific:
total won...$885
total bet....$550
Plus/Minus.$335
ITM%........58%
ROI%........61%

2nd 100 SNGs - mix of Pacific/PokerStarst and Ultimate Bet
total won...$618
total bet....$550
Plus/Minus.$68
ITM%........42%
ROI%........12%

3rd 100 SNGs - all at UB
total won...$630
total bet....$550
Plus/Minus.$80
ITM%........42%
ROI%........15%

From this trend, I can see that I killed at Pacific (obviously), but when I've moved to the less fishy sites, its a little tougher. This makes sense to me. There are differences in the games, as at Pacific you only get $800 in chips and blinds go up every 15 hands, while at PokerStars and UB, you get $1500 in chips, blinds are times. I didn't care for PokerStarts as much as UB personally.

I think that as I've played more, I have found myself playing less straight forward, trying to make more cute plays. I think that may be a leak in my game. Although, at UB, there are normally 4-5 players at each SNG that have decent skills and play more frequently (I keep notes on each player and level).

Obviously, I didn't expect (but hoped!) that my first 100 games would be indicative of how I would continue to play, but I'm a little surprised/concerned by my ROI drop off at this level. Am I reading too much into this?

[Pepsquad]

Looks good to me. I think you already know that your ROI% that you ran at Pacific is unsustainable. I'm a little concerned/surprised that you are a "a little concerned/surprised" by your drop in ROI% over the course of 100 SNG's. If only having a 12-15% ROI over 100 throws you for a loop you'd better brace yourself for what a truely aweful run looks like.
Good job though - keep up the good work.

Pep.

[wulfheir]

I'm a Stars player. I've got around 200 SNGs there at the $5 + .50 buy-in.

Since I'm thinking of opening an account at a new site, I'm curious how you play Pacific 800 chip SnG versus Stars 1500 chip SnG. My ROI is just barely staying over 0%, but I feel good with my play, only grinding out more SnGs will tell me if I'm winning. I find, with 1500 chips, you have to get involved, and win, a hand or 2 before it gets down to 5 players or 50/100 blinds. When I'm the short stack here, I find the calling range of my opponents widens a lot, and stealing is hard.

I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

[wulfheir]

I'm a Stars player. I've got

[Kristian]

Comparing ROI in 3 sets of 100 SnG's makes no sense at all from a statistical point of view. It will give you no information about your ability.
A long term ROI of 12-15% is much much more realistic than 61%, so concern yourself more with game and hand analysis than win rate analysis.
That said, a 29% ROI over 300 SnG's appears pretty good, so I would move up a level (or rather, I would have moved up a level a while ago).

[the_joker]

Sounds like you're doing great, I wouldn't be concerned with your ROI, just keep trying to improve it. Move around sites/limits until you find your sweet spot. Maybe that's Pacific for you, but you'll need more games to tell.

[keithb]

I didn't care for PokerStars because you started with 9 players rather than 10, so it kind of threw off my stats. Its silly, but if you make it ITM and get third, you only get $9, or a gain of $3.50. Silly, I know.

Anyways, I like the structure on UB much better, particularly the mini-view. As for strategy, on Pacific I felt like with $800 in chips, you could basically only take one or two shots with marginal hands or your in trouble. If you do the math, on Pacific, once you get to $2400 or so in chips (3 players money), there is really no reason you shouldn't make it into the money. A lot of people overplay their big stacks. It is very rare for them to just clean up and blow everyone up, so once I het $2400 or so, I would just tighten up the ship until I got the money, steal a blind or two, only play AA or KK, maybe QQ or JJ since its short handed.

With UB, you can take a couple more shots with marginal hands to build your chip stacks. Similar to Pacific, once you get to around $4000 in chips, maybe $4500, you really have no excuse not to make it in the money. Once in the money, anything can happen, particularly when you get to the final 2. I've gone from $1200 in chips heads up to win, and also coughed up a big lead.

I guess the key is always to think in terms of getting in the money, and then really open up your game.

[keithb]

I just went insane with the disconnects on Pacific. Plus there is no multi-tabling there. I like being able to play 3 at the same time. Its nice because you don't have to wait around all day for big cards, usually they show up more frequently, and subsequently get cracked more frequently as well /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[the_joker]

Yea, Pacific inflates their saw-flop numbers on their ring games as well, that's why I quit playing there.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the key is always to think in terms of getting in the money, and then really open up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's how you lose and/or get a crappy ROI. That's the mentality most players have - tighten up on the bubble to sneak into the money.

You should be trying to win the thing from the start, but realize that you can't do it on the first hand. Just try to make it to the bubble with a decent stack, and then exploit the people who are trying to make the money. You'll bubble more often, but get a lot more 1sts, so you'll make a lot more $$.

[keithb]

I simply disagree with the statement. You can't win if you don't make it into the money. Its like saying you can win the SuperBowl without making it into the playoffs.

I'm not saying to tighten up like a big dog, but when I've tried to get more aggressive on the bubble with medium stacks, I generally find myself on the outside looking in. Unless I'm really short stacked, I try to make it to the money first.

Once you are in the money, the other players tend to loosen up a bit as well, so if you catch a hand, you can double up real quick. There's no worse feeling in the world than 4th place and I've had me plenty.

[A-Baum]

You need to be aggressive on the bubble, as long as you have FE because most of the players are just trying to sneak into the money and don't want to get involved.

When it gets down to 6 players, I pay careful attention to how they play, moreso than in the first few levels where I'm on autopilot.

Let's say you get down to 4 handed and you're middle/low stack. You can steal blinds like you wouldn't believe because people play scared, if the table is tight, and it usually is at the bubble. The big stack usually won't get involved with anything unless he's got JJ-AA. If I'm short/middle stack, I use the bubble to get me over the t4000 mark (pokerstars) and then play a litle different while I let the two t1500 stacks go at it.

After reading HOH talk about playing the opposite of the table, it really clicked and I plugged a big hole in my SnG game.

If 4 people are tightening up trying to sneak into the money, it's a crapshoot for who gets the better cards. If you play aggressive against 3 people trying to get into the money, you'll find yourself in a better situation to win the whole thing.

The only time 4th place finishes bother me is when I didn't play aggressive enough and sold myself down the river.

[DasLeben]

This is just flat wrong. You're implying that you shouldn't tighten up on the bubble, but you shouldn't get more aggressive? I don't get it.

The reason you're probably "on the outside looking in" is that you don't know how to properly pick your spots. Bubble play is not about becoming a maniac when you feel like it. Bubble play has a solid mathematical framework that you need to be able to understand before you can do well.

Yes, using *proper* bubble technique will bounce you out in 4th-5th place a lot more than you're probably used to. However, you're not going to be left shortstacked in the money trying to crawl your way to second.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no worse feeling in the world than 4th place

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care anymore. I'm immune to it, and so are the other players that play these seriously. Don't fear the bubble, and you'll go a long way.

[keithb]

Thanks for your feedback, I read and printed out the posting from the June issue on bubble play. I'm working on plugging this "leak".

[Amything]

Whats that you printed? June issue? Sounds like an interesting read, where is it?

[keithb]

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/Bragg0506.html

[pokerlaw]

Good stats, i mean, you are not losing, so that is good.

One point:

Be wary of comparing your Pacific (t800 starting) stats with your UB stats. The two games are different animals. You can be great at one and not so good at the other and vice versa. Judging by your UB ITM and ROI (you didnt post finish distribution but i digress), you seem to be getting a lot of 3rd places. work on improving that.

btw, I haven't been playin much the last month due to time contraints, but i might have seen you on the $5's there - as i also 3 table w/ miniview. "shotofjack" or "rajinatorx".

take care and good luck...

[keithb]

Thanks for the feedback, I do think about that and you have some valid points about the games being different animals. I like starting with more chips though at UB.

I will look for you at the $5.50s, my UB name is kdiddy33. Give me a 2+2 in the chat if you see me.