Part-time SnG grinders

[Nato76]

I 4 table the $22 SnG's part time because I have a full time job and a family. I try to play between 15-25 hours a week if possible. My question to the part time $22 SnG players is how much do you make a week on average? How many hours do you play? My short term goal is to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22 part time. Possible? After my first 100 SnG's my ROI is about 8% higher than my ITM. I need to work on getting ITM.

[trdi]

[ QUOTE ]
After my first 100 SnG's my ROI is about 8% higher than my ITM. I need to work on getting ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that mean? ITM = ROI - 8? How about some real numbers? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bluff Daddy]

very possible, if your getting in 100 tables a week you would need a roi around 20% to make $500

[Nato76]

ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
very possible, if your getting in 100 tables a week you would need a roi around 20% to make $500

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. 100 tables a week with a ROI of 20% is possible for me to do.

[Lady Dont Tekno]

[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a huge problem over this small sample size. You probably have a high percentage of first and 4-5th place finishes. Seems ok to me.

LDT

[hardinda]

[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I placed first more than any other place but of course I didn't win everytime I was ITM. I will check again but it should not be way off.

[Bluff Daddy]

maybe 36% itm, 26% roi?

[Vetstadium]

Welcome to the part time club to alleviate this problem I am going to 8 table. I part time the 33's at the 22's your goal is ubtainable with your cuurent ROI.

[drjnightowl]

Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough. A few reasons:

1. 4-tabling is fast and fun, but you are almost guaranteed to not play your *best* poker at any of those tables. If you can get by with playing pretty well, then more power to you, but most people who make a profit from cards do so because they are playing their best, all the time.
2. How's your mental health holding up? If you suffer a bad beat at one table, how does that affect your play at the other three? What happens when you get down to the bubble at all four tables? Do you get flustered, hasty even? Be honest with yourself here... it certainly happens to me, and that's why I avoid multi-tabling.
3. It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391. When comparing the two, you wind up with 3.5454 vs. 3.587 ROI (in favor of the 100 game). You're also more likely to play better at the single table, and it's also easier to get one 1st than four 1sts at the same time.

Of course this is just a suggestion; some people can handle multible tables really well, but they usually make their living doing it.

I started with $50 at the $10 tables, and playing one a night (at most, sometimes I'm not in the mood to play poker some evenings), I'm now up to 1.65k in 6 months. My ITM is right around 70% at the $50's right now and I couldn't be happier with that.

In summary, when it comes to poker, quality, not quantity, is the best way to go. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe 36% itm, 26% roi?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ROI is definitely higher than my ITM. I am at work and I only have half my stats in front of me. I looked at them this morning and I am going by my memory. I will post the actual stats when I get off but for sure my ROI is higher than my ITM. I will also check for mistakes. I am just happy to know that $500 a week is possible playing part time. I can do 100 SnG's a week.

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough. A few reasons:

1. 4-tabling is fast and fun, but you are almost guaranteed to not play your *best* poker at any of those tables. If you can get by with playing pretty well, then more power to you, but most people who make a profit from cards do so because they are playing their best, all the time.
2. How's your mental health holding up? If you suffer a bad beat at one table, how does that affect your play at the other three? What happens when you get down to the bubble at all four tables? Do you get flustered, hasty even? Be honest with yourself here... it certainly happens to me, and that's why I avoid multi-tabling.
3. It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391. When comparing the two, you wind up with 3.5454 vs. 3.587 ROI (in favor of the 100 game). You're also more likely to play better at the single table, and it's also easier to get one 1st than four 1sts at the same time.

Of course this is just a suggestion; some people can handle multible tables really well, but they usually make their living doing it.

I started with $50 at the $10 tables, and playing one a night (at most, sometimes I'm not in the mood to play poker some evenings), I'm now up to 1.65k in 6 months. My ITM is right around 70% at the $50's right now and I couldn't be happier with that.

In summary, when it comes to poker, quality, not quantity, is the best way to go. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

you made $270/month, he wants to make $500/week

[Indiana]

Why not just move to $30+3 tables? They are no harder and maybe easier than the 20+2 and 10+1 tables (more gamblers up there).

Indy

[Vetstadium]

I prefer to 4 table the 33's or 22's if you do not go on tilt you face poorer quality of players and overall an easier game to beat.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough. A few reasons:

1. 4-tabling is fast and fun, but you are almost guaranteed to not play your *best* poker at any of those tables. If you can get by with playing pretty well, then more power to you, but most people who make a profit from cards do so because they are playing their best, all the time.
2. How's your mental health holding up? If you suffer a bad beat at one table, how does that affect your play at the other three? What happens when you get down to the bubble at all four tables? Do you get flustered, hasty even? Be honest with yourself here... it certainly happens to me, and that's why I avoid multi-tabling.
3. It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391. When comparing the two, you wind up with 3.5454 vs. 3.587 ROI (in favor of the 100 game). You're also more likely to play better at the single table, and it's also easier to get one 1st than four 1sts at the same time.

Of course this is just a suggestion; some people can handle multible tables really well, but they usually make their living doing it.

I started with $50 at the $10 tables, and playing one a night (at most, sometimes I'm not in the mood to play poker some evenings), I'm now up to 1.65k in 6 months. My ITM is right around 70% at the $50's right now and I couldn't be happier with that.

In summary, when it comes to poker, quality, not quantity, is the best way to go. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your suggestions. I started with $50 and I started playing $10 SnG's and worked my way up to $2k in 2 months. I just started 4 tabling the $22 SnG's last week and have been some success. The reason I think multitabling is better for me is because if I only play one $109 table a night and suffer a bad beat im done for the night. Multi-tabling allows me to make some money even if I suffer a bad beat here and there. Also rakeback isn't much at the level I play but 4 tabling $22 is better than getting rakeback off of one $109 SnG a day. Just my opinion and not a fact. Please let me know what other think.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

First, the $109s are MUCH tougher than the 22s, so your ITM and ROI will go down.

Second, playing more tournaments reduces variance and evens out the swings, allowing a more consistent profit. If you play one tournament a night, and lose 14 in a row, that's a pretty crappy 2 weeks. The more tournaments you play, the better the chance of approximating your average return.

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Your potential return is always 50/30/20% (in a 10-handed SNG) regardless of the buyin. Of course you can make more money in dollar terms at a $109 then 4 $22s, but that's only because you're wagering more money to begin with.

Unless you absoultely can't handle multi-tabling, it's better to multitable the lower buyins than play fewer high-buyin tournaments, especially something as few as 1 a night.

[Vetstadium]

I too see very little difference in the 22's and 33's.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer to 4 table the 33's or 22's if you do not go on tilt you face poorer quality of players and overall an easier game to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I will try 1 or 2 games there but I just started playing the $22 tables last week. Don't you think I should get some experience at this level and then move up? Do you really feel the $33's are easier?

[drjnightowl]

Well I also started with fifty bucks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If I maintain the same playing ratio (one sng every one or two days) and the same ITM% when I get to the 100's as I have kept in the 10's - 50's, then averaging 500 a week is a mathematical certainty. I've just had to work my way up to that level rather than starting from scratch there.

DrJ

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I placed first more than any other place but of course I didn't win everytime I was ITM. I will check again but it should not be way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, something is way off. At 26% ITM, the absolute maximum ROI is 18%. The advice you're getting on this forum is useless without good numbers. Specifically, how many tournaments have you played, and how many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes do you have?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough. A few reasons:

1. 4-tabling is fast and fun, but you are almost guaranteed to not play your *best* poker at any of those tables. If you can get by with playing pretty well, then more power to you, but most people who make a profit from cards do so because they are playing their best, all the time.
2. How's your mental health holding up? If you suffer a bad beat at one table, how does that affect your play at the other three? What happens when you get down to the bubble at all four tables? Do you get flustered, hasty even? Be honest with yourself here... it certainly happens to me, and that's why I avoid multi-tabling.
3. It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391. When comparing the two, you wind up with 3.5454 vs. 3.587 ROI (in favor of the 100 game). You're also more likely to play better at the single table, and it's also easier to get one 1st than four 1sts at the same time.

Of course this is just a suggestion; some people can handle multible tables really well, but they usually make their living doing it.

I started with $50 at the $10 tables, and playing one a night (at most, sometimes I'm not in the mood to play poker some evenings), I'm now up to 1.65k in 6 months. My ITM is right around 70% at the $50's right now and I couldn't be happier with that.

In summary, when it comes to poker, quality, not quantity, is the best way to go. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, this is pretty terrible advice.

#1: It's pretty simple to play your best when 4-tabling. I find it harder to play my best when 1-tabling. Harder to concentrate when you are bored out of your mind.
#2: Bad beats are much easier to take when you are 4-tabling as opposed to 1-tabling.
#3: The difference in ROI that you outline is SOLELY due to the difference in rake, not the difference in 1-tabling vs. 4-tabling. By your argument, he should be playing the $200, not the $20s.


Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

ha didnt see that, must be pretty damn small since hes only made 1600 on all levels

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]

First, the $109s are MUCH tougher than the 22s, so your ITM and ROI will go down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... I have actually found the opposite to be true. My ITM and ROI have consistently increased as I moved from the 5's up to the 50's, with the biggest immediate increase taking place between 22 and 33. I can explain this with a wonderful side story:
Poker buddy of mine quit college to play online. He still dominates the 20/40 tables at a particular site (will maintain his anonymity). Him and I were once invited to a professor's house for thanksgiving, where we proceeded to play penny-poker with the professor and his 4 year old son. I held my own, but my buddy got whipped.... the variance, the sheer randomness of the 4yo's play combined with some luck would have been enough to bust my pal even if we were at a 10k buyin.
I see plenty more 4yo's at the 10 tables than I do at the 50's.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, playing more tournaments reduces variance and evens out the swings, allowing a more consistent profit. If you play one tournament a night, and lose 14 in a row, that's a pretty crappy 2 weeks. The more tournaments you play, the better the chance of approximating your average return.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now this, I agree with. I simply find that playing *more* tournaments (at the same time, or one after another in succession with few breaks) also reduces your over all level of play in any given hand, so it's kind of like an economics problem... a lot at 90% skill, or a few at 100% skill? However, I think most 2+2ers would agree that, if they are playing their best, 14 losses in a row is an extremely unlikely event. In fact, 5 losses in a row should be a fairly rare occurance.

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391...

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Your potential return is always 50/30/20% (in a 10-handed SNG) regardless of the buyin. Of course you can make more money in dollar terms at a $109 then 4 $22s, but that's only because you're wagering more money to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to clarify: your MAXIMUM return from playing 4 $20 tables is 312 (400 - 88), while your MAXIMUM return from playing 1 $100 table is $391 (500 - 109). Therefore, you've got an ROI of 312/88 = 3.5454 for the 4-tabling, and an ROI of 3.587 for the $100 game. If you play flawlessly, your return of investment is higher for the $100 game, and ROI has nothing to do with initial wager.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you absoultely can't handle multi-tabling, it's better to multitable the lower buyins than play fewer high-buyin tournaments, especially something as few as 1 a night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'll have to go back to the 20's so I can catch these guys when they're multitabling... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I placed first more than any other place but of course I didn't win everytime I was ITM. I will check again but it should not be way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, something is way off. At 26% ITM, the absolute maximum ROI is 18%. The advice you're getting on this forum is useless without good numbers. Specifically, how many tournaments have you played, and how many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this and that is why I am going to post my exact numbers when I get off of work. My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[Zoelef]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this and that is why I am going to post my exact numbers when I get off of work. My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming a consistent 25% rakeback and 20% ROI on the $22's, you effectively "make" $4.50/tourney.
To make $500/week, you have to play 500/4.5 = ~112 SnG's.
4-tabling one set per hour means you have to play ~28 hours to make $500/week. So, I would say it's attainable within 25 hours, but not every week.

[15-25]*$4.50*4 = 270-450/week, not counting statisical deviation and whatnot.

Edit: I'm currently 3-tabling the Bodog 5.50s to the tune of 39% ITM/14% ROI/64% ITM from bubble. I should move up but I keep getting sucked out/forced to push on bubbles with a short stack. :\

Edit 2: My math sucks. holla.

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you play ~100 tournies -- at least 16 to 20 hours -- per week?
If so, a 20% ROI makes your goal attainable.

So yes, it is possible, depending how good you are and if you have the time.

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
To make $500/week, you have to play 500/2.5 = 200 SnG's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would check those numbers again.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming a consistent 25% rakeback and 20% ROI on the $22's, you effectively "make" $2.50/tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

With those assumptions, he'd be making $4.90 / tourney, not $2.50

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
very possible, if your getting in 100 tables a week you would need a roi around 20% to make $500

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems quite wrong to me. ROI of 20% implies an ITM of 28%, but let's just make it 32% for fun purposes.

100 $20 games = $2200 buy in
average return for ITM finish = 66.66667 (100 + 60 + 40)/3
average return times ITM's: 66.66667 * 32 = 2133.3333

Total profit = 2133.3333 - 2200 = -66.6666.

So, in summary, an ITM rate of 32% actually produces a loss of 67 bucks for this number and this type of game.

Am I flawed in my correlation of ROI and ITM here?

drJ

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

ha didnt see that, must be pretty damn small since hes only made 1600 on all levels

[/ QUOTE ]

My ITM has remained consistent at around 70% since I started playing sng's six months ago. I started in the $10 games and have slowly increased the levels as my bankroll has increased, maintaining a very strict 5% ceiling. All in all I have around 200 sng's logged I believe.

DrJ

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
All in all I have around 200 sng's logged I believe.

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Multiply that by about 5-10 and you'll have a meaningful sample size.

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
My ITM has remained consistent at around 70% since I started playing sng's six months ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are in for a pretty rude awakening. You'll wish you hadn't found 2+2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2731072&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1&vc=1)

[TheNoodleMan]

Drj, you are so badly flawed on so many levels that I really don't know where to begin.
I just hope for the OP's sake that he doesn't listen to anything you have posted here.
What makes you think you can just jump right into this forum and spew nonsense? There are people on here who have spent a lot of time learning this game, you need to learn from them insrtead of giving advice you obviously aren't qualified to give.

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmm, this is pretty terrible advice.

#1: It's pretty simple to play your best when 4-tabling. I find it harder to play my best when 1-tabling. Harder to concentrate when you are bored out of your mind.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you're bored, than you're obviously not playing your best.
[ QUOTE ]

#2: Bad beats are much easier to take when you are 4-tabling as opposed to 1-tabling.


[/ QUOTE ]
I find bad beats to be very "fibonacci". If you're playing four tables, then one bad beat will amplify your bad play in the other three. A second bad beat will really get you riled up, so that you're battling between "I must make up for my two losses" and "if that fish can suck out with J7, so can I!" And so on. Of course, everybody's different, and if you can just let a bad beat go immediately, more power to to you. I myself cannot, and if I bubble out to a bad beat, I usually require an hour or so of cool-down time before my playing ability comes back up to 100%.
[ QUOTE ]

#3: The difference in ROI that you outline is SOLELY due to the difference in rake, not the difference in 1-tabling vs. 4-tabling. By your argument, he should be playing the $200, not the $20s.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, if it can be afforded. And why shouldn't you consider the rake? It's still money that you're spending, why shouldn't you include it in your figures? If you don't, breaking even will result in a loss.

[ QUOTE ]

Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered this in another one, but I've logged about 200 sng's. Also, my 70% ITM refers to my progression from the $10 tables up to the $50 tables, not ALL $50's.
(And, though I hate to admit it, I've blown some money on pineapple... I'm weak)

[Luminous Mist]

So you have 70% ITM over a self-selected 200 STTs?

Because if you have 70% over 200 STTs it's pretty much guaranteed that you sucked someone's hooha at Party...

Luminous

[45suited]

Even if you're 70% claim is accurate, your advice to the OP is horrible. You will soon be meeting an old friend who is due to make an appearance - Variance.

[wulfheir]

I'm no pro, but from what I've read here over the last 7 or 8 months is that your sample size is not only small, but mostly meaningless. And that 70% ITM is not sustainable.

Both of these realities have been well documented and proven time and time again.

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Drj, you are so badly flawed on so many levels that I really don't know where to begin.
I just hope for the OP's sake that he doesn't listen to anything you have posted here.
What makes you think you can just jump right into this forum and spew nonsense? There are people on here who have spent a lot of time learning this game, you need to learn from them insrtead of giving advice you obviously aren't qualified to give.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. What works for me might not work for others. These forums are all about getting suggestions and then choosing the best one for yourself.

On a side note, I've always considered "Return On Investment" to reflect the 100% aggregation, such that a 100% ROI means you get your bet back. I had to adjust my calculations when I read about a 20% ROI being profitable, so I apologize if I was wrong there.

drJ

[Nato76]

I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week with an ROI of 20%. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#1: It's pretty simple to play your best when 4-tabling. I find it harder to play my best when 1-tabling. Harder to concentrate when you are bored out of your mind.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you're bored, than you're obviously not playing your best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. That's his point. He plays worse 1-tabling. I'm the same way, as are a lot of people I imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

#2: Bad beats are much easier to take when you are 4-tabling as opposed to 1-tabling.


[/ QUOTE ]
I find bad beats to be very "fibonacci". If you're playing four tables, then one bad beat will amplify your bad play in the other three. A second bad beat will really get you riled up, so that you're battling between "I must make up for my two losses" and "if that fish can suck out with J7, so can I!" And so on. Of course, everybody's different, and if you can just let a bad beat go immediately, more power to to you. I myself cannot, and if I bubble out to a bad beat, I usually require an hour or so of cool-down time before my playing ability comes back up to 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could try not being a headcase an understand that beats happen. If you're letting beats dictate your play, you have some issues to work on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

#3: The difference in ROI that you outline is SOLELY due to the difference in rake, not the difference in 1-tabling vs. 4-tabling. By your argument, he should be playing the $200, not the $20s.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, if it can be afforded. And why shouldn't you consider the rake? It's still money that you're spending, why shouldn't you include it in your figures? If you don't, breaking even will result in a loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke, right? Tell me you're just kidding.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered this in another one, but I've logged about 200 sng's.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. To make things simple, I spent 3 weeks locked inside a chemistry lab and I came out with a formula that should solve everything.

ITM = Times you made the money/Total times played.

You did not finish in the money 140 out of 200 times.

It's times like these I miss citanul. He'd set the record straight /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
So you have 70% ITM over a self-selected 200 STTs?

Because if you have 70% over 200 STTs it's pretty much guaranteed that you sucked someone's hooha at Party...

Luminous

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not self-selected. I don't understand what's so hard to believe about a 70% ITM. If you demand of yourself that it takes a 3:1 beat to eliminate you out of the money from any particular sng you play, then you should make the money 75% of the time.

Is this fuzzy math?

DrJ

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question cannot be answered with such a lack of basic information.

If you can attain at least a 20% ROI at the 22's, you can. If you can't, the answer is no. Period.

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nato, people have gotten rather distracted by my post. I guess I ticked them off.

To answer your question, according to my calculations, you can profit exactly $500 if you play 4 tables/hour, 25 hours a week, and maintain an ITM percentage of 40.49%. Certainly possible in my opinion.

DrJ

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you have 70% ITM over a self-selected 200 STTs?

Because if you have 70% over 200 STTs it's pretty much guaranteed that you sucked someone's hooha at Party...

Luminous

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not self-selected. I don't understand what's so hard to believe about a 70% ITM. If you demand of yourself that it takes a 3:1 beat to eliminate you out of the money from any particular sng you play, then you should make the money 75% of the time.

Is this fuzzy math?

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahaahha. you are brilliant. POTD.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered this in another one, but I've logged about 200 sng's. Also, my 70% ITM refers to my progression from the $10 tables up to the $50 tables, not ALL $50's.
(And, though I hate to admit it, I've blown some money on pineapple... I'm weak)

[/ QUOTE ]

You mentioned that your ROI/ITM has gotten better as you moved up in levels (since it's "easier to make money off better players"...this is a common poker fallacy). If your ITM is 70% over all tourneys, does this mean that you're trying to say you've got a higher ITM than 70% in the 50s? 80%? 90%? This is ridiculous.

What level you play at should depend on your BR and skill. One shouldn't jump into a $109 SNG simply because there's less rake (hence the FRACTIONAL increase in ROI).

Ridiculous.

>>>ZIPPPY

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nato, people have gotten rather distracted by my post. I guess I ticked them off.

To answer your question, according to my calculations, you can profit exactly $500 if you play 4 tables/hour, 25 hours a week, and maintain an ITM percentage of 40.49%. Certainly possible in my opinion.

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

stop feeding him this retarded crap that will only disillusion him. ITM MEANS NOTHING FOOL!!!

OK, that's a bit of a stretch. Please nato, realize that ITM doesn't tell you anything about how much money you make. You do realize that it is possible for someone with a 40% ITM make the same amount as someone with a 100% ITM, right?

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week with an ROI of 20%. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nato, it's possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling, but it'd take around 20 hours with a good ROI around 20%. Don't move up to the $33s unless you have the bankroll for it, which is generally agreed to be around 50 buyins. Your risk of ruin is too great if you play at buyins too high.

>>>ZIPPPY

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question cannot be answered with such a lack of basic information.

If you can attain at least a 20% ROI at the 22's, you can. If you can't, the answer is no. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the newb type questions. I edited to say 100 Sng's with a ROI of 20% which I think I can do. For the most part the majority says it is possible.

[trdi]

Hahahahaha. He's brilliant. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Where the F... did you get the 3:1?! Where? How?

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
Hahahahaha. He's brilliant. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Where the F... did you get the 3:1?! Where? How?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a difficult feat even if you were playing with braindead toddlers who played with their hands face up.

[TheNoodleMan]

[quote
Sorry Nato, people have gotten rather distracted by my post. I guess I ticked them off.

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Nato, ignore this moeran. I'm sure you didn't post a question to have in answered by a noob that just signed up on the forum today.
To answer your question, it is awfully ambitious to believe that you can 4 table the 22s part time, but that doesn't meanthat you should necessarily move up to the 33s. Poker is not a magical ATM where you can just move up and make more money. It takes work. Play the 22s, see how you do. For all we know, you could be a losing player, in whioch case it doesn't matter what level you play at. The only way you will find the right level for you is by playing. Good luck.

[Nato76]

This is very true. I could be a losing player. I want to thank all of you for your comments and answers. It has been a great help. You could easily of just flamed the hell out of me. I am going to keep grinding the $22's while continuing to read the forums. I will try not to get ahead of myself. This is going to be my short term mission and I will not give up.

[revots33]

No offense drj, but your logic is completely flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
the variance, the sheer randomness of the 4yo's play combined with some luck would have been enough to bust my pal even if we were at a 10k buyin.
I see plenty more 4yo's at the 10 tables than I do at the 50's.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is yet another variation of the "I play better against good players than I do against bad ones" argument. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that purposely seeking out tougher competition will improve your results.


[ QUOTE ]
I think most 2+2ers would agree that, if they are playing their best, 14 losses in a row is an extremely unlikely event. In fact, 5 losses in a row should be a fairly rare occurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that for a good player, 5 consecutive OTM finishes in a SNG is a rare occurrence. Wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to clarify: your MAXIMUM return from playing 4 $20 tables is 312 (400 - 88), while your MAXIMUM return from playing 1 $100 table is $391 (500 - 109). Therefore, you've got an ROI of 312/88 = 3.5454 for the 4-tabling, and an ROI of 3.587 for the $100 game. If you play flawlessly, your return of investment is higher for the $100 game, and ROI has nothing to do with initial wager.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think your math is fuzzy to say the least. Maybe one of the more mathematical types on this board can explain it better than me. Comparing the ROI for 1 win at the 109s to 4 wins at the 22s is pointless. Over the long run, the only difference in ROI between an identical amount wagered on 109s and the 22s (assuming identical results) would be due to the slightly higher rake (10 percent for the 22s vs. 9 percent rake for the 100s). But of course, the results probably wouldn't be identical. You'd almost certainly do worse at the 109s, due to the higher caliber of opponent.

[Vetstadium]

20% ROI means $4.40 per tourn so 100 a week gets you 440.

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am getting conflicting answers to my question. Is it possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling $22 part time? Lets say I play 100 SnG's a week. Some say yes definitely and some say no way. Maybe I should just try the $33 tables like someone else suggested. Please let me know. For the people that already posted on here. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nato, people have gotten rather distracted by my post. I guess I ticked them off.

To answer your question, according to my calculations, you can profit exactly $500 if you play 4 tables/hour, 25 hours a week, and maintain an ITM percentage of 40.49%. Certainly possible in my opinion.

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

stop feeding him this retarded crap that will only disillusion him. ITM MEANS NOTHING FOOL!!!

OK, that's a bit of a stretch. Please nato, realize that ITM doesn't tell you anything about how much money you make. You do realize that it is possible for someone with a 40% ITM make the same amount as someone with a 100% ITM, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ROI by 5%? Hmm... play better?

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ITM by 5%? Oh, that's easy, make the money 5% more of the time.

ITM figures can be used accurately, you just have to know how to use them. Take the $20 tables for example: an EV from an ITM performance would be 100 + 60 + 40 / 3, which is 66.6667. Therefore, if you wish to use your ITM percentage for calculation, the EV is a suitable figure. Moreover, if you wish to remain mathematically "aware" of the progress of your game, it's much easier to reason through than the ROI.

But then again, my degree isn't in math or statistics, so what do I know.

DrJ

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ROI by 5%? Hmm... play better?

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ITM by 5%? Oh, that's easy, make the money 5% more of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Irrefutable! Ship it!

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ROI by 5%? Hmm... play better?

How would you adjust your play if I told you that you needed to raise your ITM by 5%? Oh, that's easy, make the money 5% more of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Irrefutable! Ship it!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a changed man.

Sure, I could increase my ITM by about 2-3% if I wanted to. And I'd make less money. But I shan't try and explain that complex mumbo-jumbo to him.

[mlagoo]

this thread somehow keeps getting better

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, my degree isn't in math or statistics, so what do I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was I'd demand a refund.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread somehow keeps getting better

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because idiots like me are playing right into his hand.

[wrongshui]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this and that is why I am going to post my exact numbers when I get off of work. My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming a consistent 25% rakeback and 20% ROI on the $22's, you effectively "make" $2.50/tourney.
To make $500/week, you have to play 500/2.5 = 200 SnG's.
4-tabling one set per hour means you have to play ~50 hours to make $500/week. So, I would say no.

[15-25]*$2.50*4 = 150-250/week, not counting statisical deviation and whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your math and all that jazz, but... The way my brain is set up, is... 100 games at 20% ROI should be $440 no? Thats $22 x 100 = 2200 x .2 = $440.

That with Rakeback should be enough to meet his $500 requirement.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your math and all that jazz, but... The way my brain is set up, is... 100 games at 20% ROI should be $440 no? Thats $22 x 100 = 2200 x .2 = $440.

That with Rakeback should be enough to meet his $500 requirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

His math works out well for $11 SNGs though.

[Bluff Daddy]

Wow I go to lunch and come back and this simple question as 60something replies, yes if he plays 15-25hrs like he said he should be able to get in around 100sngs and to make $500 he needs a roi of around 20% which is very attainable.

[drjnightowl]

I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't understand why your arguments are fallacious and would genuinely like to find out, then I suggest you start a new thread to ask where and why you went wrong. The issues that you are struggling are elementary, and you need to learn them pronto if you aspire to become any type of a serious poker player.

That is the second best advice anybody can give you. The best advice would be not to come across as a know-it-all punk. The replies will be much more constructive if you ahve an open mind. You're not off to a good start here. You lost half your stack on the first hand, but it's not too late for a comeback. You seem well enough intentioned. Good luck.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[/ QUOTE ] Dude, we just want to see your stats. How many did you play, at what level. What were your finishes?

You can't make a claim like 70% ITM and just go away.

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't understand why your arguments are fallacious and would genuinely like to find out, then I suggest you start a new thread to ask where and why you went wrong. The issues that you are struggling are elementary, and you need to learn them pronto if you aspire to become any type of a serious poker player.


[/ QUOTE ]
I will do that.

As for appearing like a know-it-all punk, well... I hope my background can serve as an excuse. I played silly online poker for about a year, and hit rock bottom this past Christmas. After taking a month off, I made it my New Years resolution to become serious about every game I played. I gave myself one chance, a $50 deposit, to come back: I'd either go bust or go up. Well, I went up. I'm at $1650 now (as of last night), and it's all attributed to SNG's. ::laughs:: Actually, it should be higher, but as I said in another post, I've strayed from time to time to play Pineapple and Omaha (especially when I was in the 300-600 range).... I discovered that I am not a good cash player, and that kept me in the 20's for a while.

So that's my story. I'm not looking forward to being humbled soon, but there's no dodging variance, so I'm sure it will happen eventually. Hopefully not before I finish my Step Higher progression though... I bought in at step 1 and currently have a 3. Having trouble finding a full table though.

DrJ

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[/ QUOTE ] Dude, we just want to see your stats. How many did you play, at what level. What were your finishes?

You can't make a claim like 70% ITM and just go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PokerTracker software is at home; I'm at work right now. I can get that data later on tonight if you guys want.

DrJ

[allinadam]

What is ITM and ROI? How can I calculate these for myself? Do you have some sort of tracking program?

Edit: Ok, I'm gathering the phrases mean "In the money" and "return on investment" but I'm still wondering if there is a program that tracks these statistics for a player.

[Cunning Linguist]

SNG Tracker (http://sng.pokercomment.com)

[zipppy]

DrJ-

If you have around 1650 in your BR right now, you should seriously consider playing at least a mixture of 33s and 55s, if not all 33s. 30 buyins at the 55 level seems borderline (others would know more than me, I don't play at that level), and if you worry about your BR drying up, shifting back to the 33s might be the wise move. Just something to think about...

>>>ZIP

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you have 70% ITM over a self-selected 200 STTs?

Because if you have 70% over 200 STTs it's pretty much guaranteed that you sucked someone's hooha at Party...

Luminous

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not self-selected. I don't understand what's so hard to believe about a 70% ITM. If you demand of yourself that it takes a 3:1 beat to eliminate you out of the money from any particular sng you play, then you should make the money 75% of the time.

Is this fuzzy math?

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing shorthanded SnGs I could belive you. But there is no way you have 70% ITM at full table SnGs.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
DrJ-

If you have around 1650 in your BR right now, you should seriously consider playing at least a mixture of 33s and 55s, if not all 33s. 30 buyins at the 55 level seems borderline (others would know more than me, I don't play at that level), and if you worry about your BR drying up, shifting back to the 33s might be the wise move. Just something to think about...

>>>ZIP

[/ QUOTE ]

I started with $50 and worked my way up to $1500 4 tabling the $11. Took me about 2 months. I now have a $2k bankroll but have only been playing the $22 for only about 2 weeks. Like I said my goal is to make $500 a week 4 tabling. Should I:

A. Stay in the $22 and gain some more experience?
B. Move up to the $33 to see how I do?
C. Stop asking noob questions?

Edit: I have had some success in the $22 but it has only been 100 SnG's. Is there a big difference in play between $22 and $33's?

[Degen]

It is very possible...if you have the right stuff.

[zipppy]

Since you 4 table, you could do half your tables at the 33s and half at the 22s. Keep track of how you do, and post problem hands.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you 4 table, you could do half your tables at the 33s and half at the 22s. Keep track of how you do, and post problem hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will do.

[Slim Pickens]

There is no good reason to stay at the 22's on account of bankroll if you have 2k in there. Just be willing got move down at, say, $1200 should it happen. As for the difference between the 11's, 22's, and 33's; I present this.

my stats for this year:
11's: N=300, ROI=23.3%, ITM=38.7%
22's: N=194, ROI=10.6%, ITM=38.1%
33's: N=5, ROI=172.7%, ITM=60.0%

I conclude that playing the 33's will increase your ROI about 160%.

Seriously though. The donk factor is no smaller at the 33's than at the 22's, at least not late on Sunday night when I play them.

SlimP

[trdi]

But you wou would say 11s are much easier than 22s? I mean your ROI is ... hm ... lower.

[Slim Pickens]

I suspect my results at the 22's are due to variance in a small sample size since they are not as good as I would like them to be. My results at the 33's are of course spot on.

SlimP

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
If you demand of yourself that it takes a 3:1 beat to eliminate you out of the money from any particular sng you play, then you should make the money 75% of the time.

Is this fuzzy math?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, how about this...

I go all in with AK and get called by AQ and win, then I go all in again with AK and get called by AQ and win, and then again with AK and get called by AQ and win....

What are the odds of me winning 3 all ins in a row like that?

*hint* its not 70%

[trdi]

Let's better say it's AA vs. KK three times in a row. You are hardly a favourite to win all three of them. I would REALLY love to know what does that 3:1 mean.

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for offending all of you with my comments. Obviously I have a lot to learn. I'll stick around to read anymore responses, and after that i'll go back to my hole.
DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Now go get your shinebox!!


couldnt resist /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's better say it's AA vs. KK three times in a row. You are hardly a favourite to win all three of them. I would REALLY love to know what does that 3:1 mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

To answer your first question:
You *are* a favorite to win all three of them. Here's the math:

1st hand: AA (.826) vs. KK (.144)

2nd hand: .826 * (AA (.826) vs. KK (.144)) = .6822
(in English, you take the probability of winning the first hand multiplied by your probability of winning in the second one to determine your probability of winning them both, which makes you the favorite)

3rd hand: .826 * .826 * (AA (.826) vs. KK (.826)) = .5635
(same English here: P(winning hand 1) * P(winning hand 2) * P(winning hand 3))

.5635 makes you a favorite to win all three in succession.

Second question:
3:1 means, in English "3 to 1", which suggests that for every three times player A wins, player B wins once. Or in other words, player A is 75% to win. You can usually calculate the percentages by taking the sum of your two odds factors (3 and 1 in this case) and dividing it into 100. Multiply this result by your odds factors to determine percentages.
The way I used this in a previous post suggested the following: if you only get eliminated from sng's when you are 75% or better to win the particular hand that busts you, then theory says, you should continue beyond these hands (i.e., you should win them and keep playing) 75% of the time (as x approaches infinity of course). Granted, this would be very hard to maintain, but it's a nice idea and a particular philosophy I try to adhere to. I believe HOH said it best, "One difference between a pro and an amatuer is that it usually takes TWO bad beats to eliminate a pro from a tournament."

Oh, and I would like to make a note here on statistics and probabilities:
Just because you are supposed to win 75% of the time doesn't mean you will. Just because the quarter came up heads 9 times in a row doesn't make tails a surefire bet on flip #10. Just because the roulette wheel spun a black 30 times in a row doesn't mean the next one is bound to be red. Do you see where I'm going with this?
These probabilities are, for lack of a more precise description, "as x tends to infinity." We will never play that many hands. We will never even come close to playing enough hands to make the probabilities come out exactly right. In fact, it's an easy guarantee that you will never *ever* gain a large enough sample size to prove "by example" that these numbers are correct. These numbers are theory. That theory also states that throughout your lifetime, you *could* win every single time you have AA vs. KK.

As for those who wanted to see my stats, here you go. I'm probably lying though, right? So it doesn't matter anyway:

$5 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 62
ROI% (with rake) = 181.82%
ITM%: 68.34%

$10 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 37
ROI% (with rake) = 191.47%
ITM%: 67.32%

$20 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 76
ROI% (with rake) = 186.47%
ITM%: 71.19%

$30 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 34
ROI% (with rake) = 174.62%
ITM%: 74.74%

$50 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 13
ROI% (with rake) = 183.31%
ITM%: 72.39%

For those who actually believe me and want to then "prepare me for variance," I acknowledge your intentions. However, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the numbers are concerned, my odds might as well be starting over from this very moment. I am not *due* for anything, and neither are you.

I'm sure I'll be challenged plenty from this post; I'm sure I'll offend many of you. So as a disclaimer: Please don't allow what I've said to affect your state of mind. These are merely my own interpretations of a vast and complex topic, and they reflect my personal choice of poker mentality.

DrJ

"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid."
--Epictetus

[Freudian]

I think you are one of those that forgot to request a tournament summary when doing bad alternatively delete the tournaments from PT. As for why people do it, I have no idea.

You could prove it by giving your username (or if you want to keep it more private give it to some poster here you trust). Pokerprophecy will tell us if your claims are even close to being true. You will be the only one with ITM over 57%. Hell, with the bugs in poker prophecy you have probably closer to 75%.

[Bluff Daddy]

I just want to know how you always get in as a 3:1 without blinding out

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to know how you always get in as a 3:1 without blinding out

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of waiting for the monsters; it's more like not risking your tournament life unless you've got one (or a good read on your opponent).

I've decided to make this my last post; obviously my speaking up here has done a lot more harm than good. So any of you who want the last word, please feel free to take it. I'm just a casual player trying to work my way up to a secondary income; in fact, I'm actually still working on breaking even from a horrendous beating I suffered during the Christmas holidays. You won't find me at a NL cash game for a while. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

At any rate, it's been a fun day for me on 2+2; good luck to all of you, and thanks for the educational experience.

DrJ

[Freudian]

I kinda figured you wouldn't stick around for the proving your claims part.

[trdi]

[ QUOTE ]

To answer your first question:
You *are* a favorite to win all three of them. Here's the math:

.5635 makes you a favorite to win all three in succession.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know. That's why I said you are hardly a favourite even in that case. I didn't say you are not a favourite.

[ QUOTE ]
Second question:
3:1 means, in English "3 to 1", which suggests that for every three times player A wins, player B wins once. Or in other words, player A is 75% to win. You can usually calculate the percentages by taking the sum of your two odds factors (3 and 1 in this case) and dividing it into 100. Multiply this result by your odds factors to determine percentages.
The way I used this in a previous post suggested the following: if you only get eliminated from sng's when you are 75% or better to win the particular hand that busts you, then theory says, you should continue beyond these hands (i.e., you should win them and keep playing) 75% of the time (as x approaches infinity of course). Granted, this would be very hard to maintain, but it's a nice idea and a particular philosophy I try to adhere to. I believe HOH said it best, "One difference between a pro and an amatuer is that it usually takes TWO bad beats to eliminate a pro from a tournament."

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the point again. You come ITM with ONE event where you are 75:25 favourite? This is what you claim? Because if there are two such events, you are NOT 75:25 favourite. I don't believe it either way, that you are so damn good, that you ALWAYS get ITM with ONE succesful all-in where you are 75:25 favourite.
If you meant something else, please explain. And in the future you can stop explaining me technical mathematical things, because that is not what I am (and also other posters here) asking. I am a mathematician by education, so I don't need that [censored]. Thank you.

[drapes]

So, what you're saying is, I should play tight?

[Freudian]

I'll even make a freeroll for you.

If your Pokerprophecy stats show you as ITM of over 70% (they normally show too high figures so the ITM of the recorded games should have to be ~65%) over 75+ games I will give you $165. If your Pokerprophecy show a ITM of below that you don't owe me anything (except the right to post about it).

So here you have a great chance of increasing your bankroll with 10% with no risk. PM me your screen name when you decide to take the challenge.

I have the feeling you won't, of course.

[trdi]

Of course. What he was saying is theoretically impossible. 73%... that would mean getting ITM EVERY time through 3 events with probability 0.9. WTF?! And those ITM percentages are amazing. I'm doing damn good, but I can't have 75% ITM. I would really like to know can ANYONE on this forum play 1000 5.5 SNGs and have 75% ITM.

[drjnightowl]

I'm sorry, this was just too funny to pass up...

[ QUOTE ]

And in the future you can stop explaining me technical mathematical things, because that is not what I am (and also other posters here) asking. I am a mathematician by education, so I don't need that [censored]. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you are a mathematician, I am truly sorry for offending you by trying to explain all the intricacies of your "technical mathematical things" to you. Obviously you have a very high appreciation of "technical mathematical things," and I was out of line in trying to impress upon you knowledge of "technical mathematical things" when you are clearly the expert in "technical mathematical things."

Perhaps one day you can "explain me" about those "technical mathematical things."

(last post now I promise; Freudian, your last word still counts)
DrJ

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. What he was saying is theoretically impossible. 73%... that would mean getting ITM EVERY time through 3 events with probability 0.9. WTF?! And those ITM percentages are amazing. I'm doing damn good, but I can't have 75% ITM. I would really like to know can ANYONE on this forum play 1000 5.5 SNGs and have 75% ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a player on the Party network with 300 games recorded that has an ITM over 56%. And this guy has 70% in 200?

Of course he is just trolling or more seriously he is trying to fool himself by rigging his stats.

[trdi]

English is my first foreign language, but as I said - my education is mathematics. Perhaps I should say you don't need to explain trivial mathematical basics or something, but I was afraid you wouldn't understand some of the words there. /images/graemlins/grin.gif So I went the easy way - use least complicated words so that you would really understand me. You know... we had bad experience in past with you. We were asking you questions and you just didn't get the point of them. Instead you were "answering" to your own questions and explaining technical mathematical things. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[joeblo]

Nato,

I just started playing the 10+1 and the 20+2 over the last 2 weeks. I have what ppl would categorize as an unatainable figure...and I'm sure it's true.

Currently, I have a ROI of 49% and ITM of 45%, but thats over only 110 tourneys. When I hit 500, I hope to keep the ROI around 30% at the 20+2 and the 30+3.

The reason I think I'm doing well is that although I'm 4 tabling, I stagger 2 tourneys because my first 4 tabling experience, I was ITM on all 4 tables and I was getting flustered and I couldn't play very well on all 4 tables. I ended up 2, 2, 3, 3, which I think I should have done better. I usually start 2 tables, then at about level 4 on both tables, I will add 2 more tables. Just keep adding as I finish or get knocked out. I think it helps me concentrate more on all of my games and I found it much better on my end results.

As far as what people are saying, I've found the 20+2 to be easier then the 10+1 and I hope the 30+3 are easier or just as easy as the 20+2. Going back to your question, I think making $500/week at the 20+2 or the 30+3 is easily doable, seeing that you are already a winning player and assuming you can maintain your 20% ROI level.

I hope you can keep up the positive results and keep us posted on your progress.

[drapes]

I think it's clear that he is just a very stron player.

1.65K in 6 months? God. I can't even imagine.

I should be so lucky.

[trdi]

Yeah, we can be lucky he played only 222 SNGs in 6 months. Imagine if he would play for real. A monster like that could lower ROI of ALL other players by 1%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Anyway, to be honest, I don't believe he played more than 10 SNGs and those were probably $1.2 at PS. Why do I think so? Well, if he WOULD've played more, he would make up more probable stats. I mean - the guy even calculated profit with ITM and not ROI! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
C. Stop asking noob questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

... by learning how to answer them yourself. It is hard to believe that one can become a very good player over the long run if one doesn't know how to do the simple math to answer the question of "Assume a ROI of 20% on $22 tourneys. Assume 100 tourneys a week. How much can I expect to make?" As a number of people have pointed out 20% * $22 * 100 = $440.

But what do I know I'm only ITM 38.5% of the time not 70+%.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

$5 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 62
ROI% (with rake) = 181.82%
ITM%: 68.34%


[/ QUOTE ]

42/62 = 67.74%
43/62 = 69.35%


[ QUOTE ]

$10 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 37
ROI% (with rake) = 191.47%
ITM%: 67.32%


[/ QUOTE ]

24/37 = 64.86%
25/37 = 67.57%

[ QUOTE ]

$20 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 76
ROI% (with rake) = 186.47%
ITM%: 71.19%


[/ QUOTE ]

54/76 = 71.05%
55/76 = 72.36%

[ QUOTE ]

$30 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 34
ROI% (with rake) = 174.62%
ITM%: 74.74%


[/ QUOTE ]

26/34 = 76.47%
27/34 = 79.41%

[ QUOTE ]

$50 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 13
ROI% (with rake) = 183.31%
ITM%: 72.39%


[/ QUOTE ]

9/13 = 69.23%
10/13 = 76.92%

Does rakeback also affect your ITM%?

[valejo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First, the $109s are MUCH tougher than the 22s, so your ITM and ROI will go down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... I have actually found the opposite to be true. My ITM and ROI have consistently increased as I moved from the 5's up to the 50's, with the biggest immediate increase taking place between 22 and 33. I can explain this with a wonderful side story:
Poker buddy of mine quit college to play online. He still dominates the 20/40 tables at a particular site (will maintain his anonymity). Him and I were once invited to a professor's house for thanksgiving, where we proceeded to play penny-poker with the professor and his 4 year old son. I held my own, but my buddy got whipped.... the variance, the sheer randomness of the 4yo's play combined with some luck would have been enough to bust my pal even if we were at a 10k buyin.
I see plenty more 4yo's at the 10 tables than I do at the 50's.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, playing more tournaments reduces variance and evens out the swings, allowing a more consistent profit. If you play one tournament a night, and lose 14 in a row, that's a pretty crappy 2 weeks. The more tournaments you play, the better the chance of approximating your average return.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now this, I agree with. I simply find that playing *more* tournaments (at the same time, or one after another in succession with few breaks) also reduces your over all level of play in any given hand, so it's kind of like an economics problem... a lot at 90% skill, or a few at 100% skill? However, I think most 2+2ers would agree that, if they are playing their best, 14 losses in a row is an extremely unlikely event. In fact, 5 losses in a row should be a fairly rare occurance.

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391...

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Your potential return is always 50/30/20% (in a 10-handed SNG) regardless of the buyin. Of course you can make more money in dollar terms at a $109 then 4 $22s, but that's only because you're wagering more money to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to clarify: your MAXIMUM return from playing 4 $20 tables is 312 (400 - 88), while your MAXIMUM return from playing 1 $100 table is $391 (500 - 109). Therefore, you've got an ROI of 312/88 = 3.5454 for the 4-tabling, and an ROI of 3.587 for the $100 game. If you play flawlessly, your return of investment is higher for the $100 game, and ROI has nothing to do with initial wager.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you absoultely can't handle multi-tabling, it's better to multitable the lower buyins than play fewer high-buyin tournaments, especially something as few as 1 a night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'll have to go back to the 20's so I can catch these guys when they're multitabling... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

You're killing me.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I have a ROI of 49% and ITM of 45%, but thats over only 110 tourneys. When I hit 500, I hope to keep the ROI around 30% at the 20+2 and the 30+3.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHahhahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHHAH AHAHA. *GASP* AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHHHHA. holla

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

$5 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 62
ROI% (with rake) = 181.82%
ITM%: 68.34%


[/ QUOTE ]

$6 * 62 * 1.8182 = $676.37 profit


[ QUOTE ]

$10 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 37
ROI% (with rake) = 191.47%
ITM%: 67.32%


[/ QUOTE ]

11 * 37 * 1.9147 = $779.28 profit


[ QUOTE ]

$20 SNG's:
# of Tourn. = 76
ROI% (with rake) = 186.47%
ITM%: 71.19%


[/ QUOTE ]

22 * 76 * 1.8647 = $3117.77 profit

[ QUOTE ]

$30 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 34
ROI% (with rake) = 174.62%
ITM%: 74.74%


[/ QUOTE ]

33 * 34 * 1.7462 = $1959.23 profit

[ QUOTE ]

$50 SNG's:
# of Tourn. 13
ROI% (with rake) = 183.31%
ITM%: 72.39%


[/ QUOTE ]

$55 * 13 * 1.8331 = $1310.66 profit

Total profit: $7843.31

[ QUOTE ]
I'm now up to 1.65K in 6 months

[/ QUOTE ]

I think somebody is playing a joke on us.

[joeblo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I have a ROI of 49% and ITM of 45%, but thats over only 110 tourneys. When I hit 500, I hope to keep the ROI around 30% at the 20+2 and the 30+3.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHahhahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHHAH AHAHA. *GASP* AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHHHHA. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Raptor,

Is it that funny that I think I can maintain a 30% level over 500 tourneys? I would have said 2000 but the rate I'm able to play on this CRT, I don't think I'd be able to reach 2000 for many months to come. I'd just like to see if I can make 30% ROI on the 20s and the 30s over 500 tourneys before I get grandures of saying I can maintain it for a longer period.

I know I don't play the higher limit like you do but I don't think its unthinkable to be able to maintain a 30% ROI at the 20s and 30s, especially since I seem to be better post flop then alot of the players at the 20's right now, which works to my advantage when I'm in the money it seems...but with such a small sample of 110 tourneys...I guess I'd be best to shut my trap till I do complete some more tourneys and see what my results are.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I have a ROI of 49% and ITM of 45%, but thats over only 110 tourneys. When I hit 500, I hope to keep the ROI around 30% at the 20+2 and the 30+3.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHahhahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHHAH AHAHA. *GASP* AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHHHHA. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Raptor,

Is it that funny that I think I can maintain a 30% level over 500 tourneys? I would have said 2000 but the rate I'm able to play on this CRT, I don't think I'd be able to reach 2000 for many months to come. I'd just like to see if I can make 30% ROI on the 20s and the 30s over 500 tourneys before I get grandures of saying I can maintain it for a longer period.

I know I don't play the higher limit like you do but I don't think its unthinkable to be able to maintain a 30% ROI at the 20s and 30s, especially since I seem to be better post flop then alot of the players at the 20's right now, which works to my advantage when I'm in the money it seems...but with such a small sample of 110 tourneys...I guess I'd be best to shut my trap till I do complete some more tourneys and see what my results are.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont get me wrong, its late and im in a goofy mood, but multitabling the 33s, 30% is just NOT sustainable. thats 10 dollars per. TEN PER!!! in the 30s. crazy talk. if that were possble, i would do it, and NEVER have a losing day. that would be worth way more than doing 215s imo. ok, not WAY more, but pretty damn close. i wanna hear updates as you get closer to 500. holla

[joeblo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I have a ROI of 49% and ITM of 45%, but thats over only 110 tourneys. When I hit 500, I hope to keep the ROI around 30% at the 20+2 and the 30+3.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHahhahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHHAH AHAHA. *GASP* AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHHHHA. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Raptor,

Is it that funny that I think I can maintain a 30% level over 500 tourneys? I would have said 2000 but the rate I'm able to play on this CRT, I don't think I'd be able to reach 2000 for many months to come. I'd just like to see if I can make 30% ROI on the 20s and the 30s over 500 tourneys before I get grandures of saying I can maintain it for a longer period.

I know I don't play the higher limit like you do but I don't think its unthinkable to be able to maintain a 30% ROI at the 20s and 30s, especially since I seem to be better post flop then alot of the players at the 20's right now, which works to my advantage when I'm in the money it seems...but with such a small sample of 110 tourneys...I guess I'd be best to shut my trap till I do complete some more tourneys and see what my results are.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont get me wrong, its late and im in a goofy mood, but multitabling the 33s, 30% is just NOT sustainable. thats 10 dollars per. TEN PER!!! in the 30s. crazy talk. if that were possble, i would do it, and NEVER have a losing day. that would be worth way more than doing 215s imo. ok, not WAY more, but pretty damn close. i wanna hear updates as you get closer to 500. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


I will definitely post updates as I get closer to 500 and as I move to the 30's soon. I'm doing so well in the 20's right now that I don't really want to move to the 30's yet.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think somebody is playing a joke on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just what I was thinking.

Regards
Brad S

[treeofwisdom7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think somebody is playing a joke on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just what I was thinking.

about 500 posts ago i was thinking about makeing a post like this b4. its a joke and some of you fell for it
Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

[valejo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no good reason to stay at the 22's on account of bankroll if you have 2k in there. Just be willing got move down at, say, $1200 should it happen. As for the difference between the 11's, 22's, and 33's; I present this.

my stats for this year:
11's: N=300, ROI=23.3%, ITM=38.7%
22's: N=194, ROI=10.6%, ITM=38.1%
33's: N=5, ROI=172.7%, ITM=60.0%

I conclude that playing the 33's will increase your ROI about 160%.

Seriously though. The donk factor is no smaller at the 33's than at the 22's, at least not late on Sunday night when I play them.

SlimP

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's long time this thread got re-hijacked, so here's my best effort.

For those who would like to get an idea of how much variance matters, I took Slim's results for the 11s and the 22s quoted above, assumed at 1.8buyin standard deviation, and conducted a t-test. This test is good for determining whether two groups and statistically significantly different.

Slim has played 300 11s and 194 22s. His ROI is about 12 percentage points higher at the 11s! Clearly the 11s are much easier! Here's the data to prove it!

NOT!

While it's certainly more likely than not that Slim's true ROI is higher at the 11, the evidence here doesn't prove that. In my t-test I found that the probability that the difference in ROIs is explained by random chance is 30.47%. IT'S PERFECTLY POSSIBLE that Slim is actually better at the 22s than 11s.

Food for thought.

[Myst]

I played 222 sngs in the past 3 days...

LOL.

[joeblo]

[ QUOTE ]
I played 222 sngs in the past 3 days...

LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/frown.gif curse you!!! Playing 222 would take me like 2 weeks!!! I need to get a dual 20" lcd setup someday...but for now, I'd be happy with 1!!!!

[kyro]

You're telling me you're making less than $10/tourney at the $215s?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
if you only get eliminated from sng's when you are 75% or better to win the particular hand that busts you, then theory says, you should continue beyond these hands (i.e., you should win them and keep playing) 75% of the time (as x approaches infinity of course). Granted, this would be very hard to maintain, but it's a nice idea and a particular philosophy I try to adhere to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that. Even AKs vs. 72 offsuit isn't 75% to win.


[ QUOTE ]
However, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the numbers are concerned, my odds might as well be starting over from this very moment. I am not *due* for anything, and neither are you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that you are just as likely to maintain your (ahem) 70% ROI indefinitely, since you are not necessarily "due" to do worse?

I'm no math expert, but I've never seen so many crazy twistings of the laws of statistics as I've seen in this thread.

[Nato76]

Tried the $33's last night and there is some difference from the $22's. I can be a little more aggressive in the $22's. I am basically break even right now. I am going to play some more tonight and if I don't see an improvement then I am going to move back down to the $22's.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I am basically break even right now. I am going to play some more tonight and if I don't see an improvement then I am going to move back down to the $22's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do whatever you're comfortable with. But you do realize that 1 night (or 2) is not enough to tell you anything about your ability to beat the 33s, right?

As to your original post, if you are playing part-time for extra income, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the $500 a week mark. I realize it's good to have a goal, but what if you make $450 a week. Is that no good?

The main thing is to play within your bankroll and at the levels you can beat. For you, that may well be the 33s - but I don't remember if you posted your bankroll anywhere this thread.

This is not a difficult question to answer for yourself. If your ROI is at a certain (sustainable) level, and you know how many SNGs you have time to play in a week - then it's simple. Multiply average profit per SNG x # of SNGs per week. There's your answer.

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am basically break even right now. I am going to play some more tonight and if I don't see an improvement then I am going to move back down to the $22's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do whatever you're comfortable with. But you do realize that 1 night (or 2) is not enough to tell you anything about your ability to beat the 33s, right?

As to your original post, if you are playing part-time for extra income, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the $500 a week mark. I realize it's good to have a goal, but what if you make $450 a week. Is that no good?

The main thing is to play within your bankroll and at the levels you can beat. For you, that may well be the 33s - but I don't remember if you posted your bankroll anywhere this thread.

This is not a difficult question to answer for yourself. If your ROI is at a certain (sustainable) level, and you know how many SNGs you have time to play in a week - then it's simple. Multiply average profit per SNG x # of SNGs per week. There's your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand that 2 days isn't going to tell me much about my play in the $33's. My BR is currently at $2k. I made my goal $500 but it would not be the end of the world if I came up short a week. I am going to use half of my winnings towards paying off bills and the other half towards my BR. I'm going to continue grinding and learning. I will post my results at the end of the week. I am trying to stick to the $33's but we will see what happens. I am busting out in 4th and 6th place way too much. I think I am playing too aggressive around the bubble.

[trdi]

I don't think we will see that lyer around anymore. He will come, but under other nickname. He will claim ITM 60% and ROI 80% this time.

[revots33]

My advice is: worry about improving your play and building your bankroll, rather than making x amount of dollars per week. If you keep winning and improving you'll be able to move up in limits, and the $ will take care of itself. Good luck!

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim has played 300 11s and 194 22s. His ROI is about 12 percentage points higher at the 11s! Clearly the 11s are much easier! Here's the data to prove it!

NOT!

While it's certainly more likely than not that Slim's true ROI is higher at the 11, the evidence here doesn't prove that. In my t-test I found that the probability that the difference in ROIs is explained by random chance is 30.47%. IT'S PERFECTLY POSSIBLE that Slim is actually better at the 22s than 11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It will be very hard for you to get any meaningful statistical discussion about the difference between levels because:

a) A typical 2+2 poster with statisics is a lot like a mule with a spinning wheel...
b) No one will play enough at the lower levels to develop a meaningful sample without either moving up or busting.

That being said, anecdotal evidence is just fine in deciding where to play. My ROI dropped 70% last night in two 33's because I pushed KK into AA (it happens) and 99 called my QQ all-in on an undercard board and sucked out, because well nothing beats an overpair of nines, right? Point is I've seen enough bad play in less than 10 33's to conclude with a fairly high degree of certainty that I'm going to go from a winning player to a losing player by moving up to the 33's, so I should do so according to my bankroll.

SlimP