Steps: Are they worth trying?

[Taraz]

So what is the verdict on these anyway? Last I heard they were shark traps, but with these mini steps and step highers is anything different? Should they still be avoided like the plague?

[tshort]

About a month ago, I put together a script where I could analyze whether the mini steps would be worth my time. I had to make guesses as to how often I would finish at certain places. Even with what I thought to be an optimistic place distribution, I found that it certainly wouldn't be worth it to buy directly in to mini step and attempt to work your way up. I figured you could make more playing as low as the $11 SNGs to make more money per hour.

You would have a much better ROI on the steps if you are a good player. Maybe they are a way for a good player without a bankroll to try to build one.

Does anyone have any solid data on realistic SNG place distributions for a good player?

[Edit]

I didn't perform same calculations on Regular and Higher steps, but assumed they would be less proftiable per hour than higher buy in SNGs.

[FatalError]

you can't just apply your 109 finish distrobution to 430 stepsand get your ROI, players will play differently based on the payout structure and therefore your finish distribution willflatten out more in the middle

What are "Steps"??

[tshort]

I assume you're refering to my post. I took a best guess at creating a logical finish distribution depending upon each step's structure.

If I remember right, buying into step 4 or 5 directly would yield a nice hourly profit (but then you have rollbacks in step 4 you'll have to deal with).

[Nottom]

They are basically fish traps.

If you are playing the steps and not just buying into the top directly, then you will usually run into one of 2 problems.

a) You beat up on the low limit fish and get to the top where suddenly you are in a -EV game for you.

b) You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit. Even if you buy into them at say lvl 3 which might be your normal game, you need to worry about the fact that some of your prize is wasted on things like "freerolls" to lower levels.

Basically if you are bored and playing for fun, Steps are fine. If you are actualy trying to make money trying to work your way up is a mistake.

[MegaBet]

[ QUOTE ]
They are basically fish traps.

If you are playing the steps and not just buying into the top directly, then you will usually run into one of 2 problems.

a) You beat up on the low limit fish and get to the top where suddenly you are in a -EV game for you.

b) You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit. Even if you buy into them at say lvl 3 which might be your normal game, you need to worry about the fact that some of your prize is wasted on things like "freerolls" to lower levels.

Basically if you are bored and playing for fun, Steps are fine. If you are actualy trying to make money trying to work your way up is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, exactly what I would have written.

[citanul]

i'm not totally in agreement with any of this actually.

say you're massively +ev in some lower step like 3 and 4. and those are within your bankroll. then playing those, even if you feel you are going to be slightly -ev in the top steps is very reasonable.

say you're just straight up +ev in the top step, but don't have either the bankroll or the stomach for variance to buy in at the top. chances are very good that you will be fine just buying in at a lower step.

i am not a fan of the concept of "part of the prize being wasted on freerolls" it's not wasted, there's just a payout structure. if you're +ev, it means you're +ev, with all the other prizes taken into account and everything.

part of what i'm trying to say is that the concept of "lower steps being -ev because you should be playing a higher limit" strikes me as off. it might be -$ev relative to buying in to the top step, but it could still be +$ev. along that line, it could be out of your bankroll limitations or stomachability, as i have mentioned already, to play your most +$ev game, which is a reasonable thing to consider when remembering that life is not jus about $ev.

i find the steps to be fun and profitable.

the type of play that exists there is in large part very bad, amongst other things.

citanul

[microbet]

Fun? What's that? I guess I'll give them a shot. It might even feel like gambling.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Fun? What's that? I guess I'll give them a shot. It might even feel like gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

fun, it's that thing that trumps the ulcers that form from buying in direct for 1k.

citanul

[RhitTaker]

[ QUOTE ]
You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
EV is not a function of time. If you should win at a given level as the length of time played reaches infinity, you have +EV. The +EV may not be as high as the +EV at higher stakes, but it is still +EV, nonetheless.

[microbet]

Ugg. The steps suck. Winning a freeroll to a lower buyin is punishing.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Ugg. The steps suck. Winning a freeroll to a lower buyin is punishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

so don't lose. that's what i do.

citanul

[THATWACOKID]

Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad.

i think mini steps can be worth it...lately what i have been doing is buying directly into bunch of mini step 4's, and then just playing those...i think i would have + EV just buying into the top and playing mini 5 and i have the bankroll, but im not sure if i want that high variance (instead id just play 200 sngs) however, what i like about buying into mini 4 is 2 things 1 - it reduces the variance, because i never lose a ton (b/c payout structure and such), also, since i am + EV in mini 4's, i look at it as a cheap way to play mini 5's which i already expect to do well in...meaning i just get to play 400 buy in sngs for a discounted price...so i think it could well be worth it for someone to buy into mini 3 or 4 or such and work up from there. if there existed a 100+9 qualifier to play a 200+15 sitngo, i dont think i would do 200 sngs direct, i would just play tons of 100+9 qualifiers for that 200! i have more experimentation yet to do, but from a few weeks of just doing mini 4's, it has shown a nice profit /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tshort]

The steps should show a nice profit. Have you found them to be worth your time per hour?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus, here's my strategy:

1) go, sit down at the table, and play better than your opponents.

2) profit, bitch.

citanul

[bjb23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus, here's my strategy:

1) go, sit down at the table, and play better than your opponents.

2) profit, bitch.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, nh. im going to have to try this one out. did you come up with this strat on your own... or is there a book i should read?

bj

[microbet]

PSFAP - Party Steps for the Advanced Player by Sklanksy.

Awesome book. You should even read it if you don't play the steps. Very insightful.

Steps are bad for the players.
The average rake paid if you make the final step is much higher than a direct buy-in. This is done by taking good share of the buy-in pool (not the fee) for the future fees. For example, in the 5+1 mini-steps, the pool is 50$ and it is used for 44$ future fund and 6$ future fees. So the total fee (or rake) paid by the players is easily 20%+, whereas if you bought a 400+30 directly, it would be 7.5%.
To beat this house edge you need to be much stronger than the field, and even that it should be more profitable to join directly the highest level or two as you pay less rake in average and it takes less time to get there.
Generally, it's a game where many players keep playing qualifiers, paying rake in the process and mostly don't get cash prize. So I wouldn't try it.

yes they have shown both a nice profit and nice hourly profit
i have not taken the time to figure out hourly wage or anything but it definitely seems worth it
only problem is...high variance at mini 5
steps seem worth it to buy in to higher levels and if u have bankroll

[TimsterToo]

Anyone who wants to get acqainted with NL Holdem SnG can buy into step1 for 6$, play ass tight until enough have busted out to win your freeroll and then practice agression.

So for players new to NL Holdem like myself it's been a great learning school for little money but better level of play than play money (well in step1 that's discussable /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

I had a lot of fun/frustration playing it and going up and down levels but without a doubt I got a whole lot of play and experience for my 6$.

For people with a bankroll good enough to be able to buyin and step4 probably not very interesting.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
EV is not a function of time. If you should win at a given level as the length of time played reaches infinity, you have +EV. The +EV may not be as high as the +EV at higher stakes, but it is still +EV, nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the right way to look at it. There is an opportunity cost to your time. If you spend time playing a lower buy-in than you normally play, you are losing money.

Paul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
EV is not a function of time. If you should win at a given level as the length of time played reaches infinity, you have +EV. The +EV may not be as high as the +EV at higher stakes, but it is still +EV, nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the right way to look at it. There is an opportunity cost to your time. If you spend time playing a lower buy-in than you normally play, you are losing money.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

several times already in this thread it has been ignored that if you play a lower buyin than normal now in order to get to play at a higher buyin than normal later, you are not necessarilly giving up net EV.

citanul