20 tabling for $55 players - Increase your ROI

For all you $55 + players, here is something for you to consider...

FACT: You make more profit per game, with a higher ROI.

FACT: Most players make a much lower ROI at the $55 games than the $11 games.

MY THEORY:
If you make more per game at the $11s, why not play them?
Because, Mr. Weakling, the stakes are lower and we don't actually make more per game. It's just a higher percentage of the buyin per game we make.

Ah! Ok. Then why not play more games, so that you are wagering the same amount, but getting a higher ROI??!


If you don't realize it yet, let me give a practical example.

A certin $55 STT player 4 tables and has a ROI of 15%. That is $8.25/game. This equals about $33/set.

Now, this same player has an ROI of 30% at the $11s. That is $3.30/game.

If you could 20 table the $11s, you would make $66/set.

You would make DOUBLE the profit per set, with far less varience.

So tell me, why has no one done it yet? Maybe they have but I haven't read about anyone even attempting 20 tables. Since $11 games are fairly robotic until the final 4, I see no reason why a winning $55 player could not give themself a SIGNIFICANT increase in ROI simply by increasing the amount of games they play per set.

Just my 2 cents.

[HonestIago15]

1)Noone with the hardware capabilities to 20-table the 10's would play only 4 50's at a time.

2) It'd be incredibly stressful and not fun to play 20 freakin games at a time

3)Your assumption that someone would only be able to pull 15% at the 50's but would be able to maintain 30% playing 20 10's is kind of ludicrous.

That's probably why.

[gildwulf]

You're working under the assumption that ROI doesn't drop drastically the more tables you have.

[viennagreen]

do it, and let us know how it works out

It would be very interesting for someone with the hardware and bankroll capacity to do this experiment. It would be cool to see their stats after 1000 games (which would not take long byt he way). Unfortunatly, I won't for the next few months, but will deffinatly try it.

True but more true for highers stakes. The $55 games are much more difficult, and require more thinking that then $11 games. I could play the $11s while watching a movie, talking on the phone, and listening to music at the same time without thinking. It is very robotic, kind of like breathing.

You are failing to realize that no matter how many tables you play, you will recieve a higher ROI% at the $11s than the $55s.

[The Yugoslavian]

I'm sure some small stakes limit players have done/do this.

Yugoslav

[johnnybeef]

because 8 tabling is strenuous enough....go hang yourself.

(that last line was for the old citanul

[ QUOTE ]
1)Noone with the hardware capabilities to 20-table the 10's would play only 4 50's at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but this is only a theory.

[ QUOTE ]
2) It'd be incredibly stressful and not fun to play 20 freakin games at a time

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
3)Your assumption that someone would only be able to pull 15% at the 50's but would be able to maintain 30% playing 20 10's is kind of ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe my assumptions are off. Do you have better figures?
But in theory, tihnk of it like this.

A winning $55 player will almost certainly have a higher ROI at the $11 games.

4 $55s - $220 risked - (INSERT YOUR $55 ROI HERE)
20 $11s - $220 risked - (INSERT YOUR $11 ROI HERE)

If your $11 ROI is higher, then you make more money. Make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
That's probably why.

[/ QUOTE ]

[HonestIago15]

[ QUOTE ]
True but more true for highers stakes. The $55 games are much more difficult, and require more thinking that then $11 games. I could play the $11s while watching a movie, talking on the phone, and listening to music at the same time without thinking. It is very robotic, kind of like breathing.

You are failing to realize that no matter how many tables you play, you will recieve a higher ROI% at the $11s than the $55s.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you never replied to the ridiculous notion that someone who was equipped to 20-table would most certainly do more than four 55's at a time.

Secondly, you're saying that just because you will always have a higher ROI at the 10's you will always have a higher hourly rate. That's ridiculous.

[Unoriginalname]

Ok yes, the 11s are pretty easy, but...20 tables? I don't care how easy the 11s are, if you have a good run and you're trying to bubble through 16+ tables, you're going to have some serious issues. You're going to make mistakes galore, period. There's no way you could keep a 30% ROI.

[WarDekar]

What I'm interested in is (keep in mind this is completely against TOS and I will most likely be flamed for even bringing it up) what if you didn't have to fold all of your [censored] hands, especially early on in those $11 tourneys? Think about it, the vast majority of your clicking in the first 4 levels of a tourney are auto-folds, so what if you didn't have to do that? How many tables could you realistically expect to play then? 30?

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, you never replied to the ridiculous notion that someone who was equipped to 20-table would most certainly do more than four 55's at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between 20-tabling $11s and 20-tabling $55s. Maybe the player plays 8 $55 tables, or even 12. What would an average player's ROI be while 12 tabling $55s? I have no idea, but certainly much lower than 4 tabling.

as I have said above, $11s are a more robotic game. You make little to no advanced plays.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, you're saying that just because you will always have a higher ROI at the 10's you will always have a higher hourly rate. That's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strength in numbers is clearly my point. You play 5 times the amount of games, at double the ROI, then yes your hourly rate with be higher. Did you read my post?

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm interested in is (keep in mind this is completely against TOS and I will most likely be flamed for even bringing it up) what if you didn't have to fold all of your [censored] hands, especially early on in those $11 tourneys? Think about it, the vast majority of your clicking in the first 4 levels of a tourney are auto-folds, so what if you didn't have to do that? How many tables could you realistically expect to play then? 30?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused?

[ QUOTE ]
Ok yes, the 11s are pretty easy, but...20 tables? I don't care how easy the 11s are, if you have a good run and you're trying to bubble through 16+ tables, you're going to have some serious issues. You're going to make mistakes galore, period. There's no way you could keep a 30% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. My numbers were complete guesses trying to show my point. If someone could provide more realistic numbers that would be cool. Either way, even with the drop in ROI, I think your hourly rate would be higher than 4 tabling $55s.

[HonestIago15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, you never replied to the ridiculous notion that someone who was equipped to 20-table would most certainly do more than four 55's at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between 20-tabling $11s and 20-tabling $55s. Maybe the player plays 8 $55 tables, or even 12. What would an average player's ROI be while 12 tabling $55s? I have no idea, but certainly much lower than 4 tabling.

as I have said above, $11s are a more robotic game. You make little to no advanced plays.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, you're saying that just because you will always have a higher ROI at the 10's you will always have a higher hourly rate. That's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strength in numbers is clearly my point. You play 5 times the amount of games, at double the ROI, then yes your hourly rate with be higher. Did you read my post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I read your post, and you disregard the fact that the situation is a little absurd because it would never happen - anyone who could play 20 tables and could beat the 50's would play more than 4 tables, most likely 8. You also have knocked down my solid arguments with "That may be true, but this is just theory." Well I suppose if you could *in theory* 50-table the 10's you could make more than 4-tabling the 215's... that doesn't mean it has any real world application, and therefore, any relevance.

[WarDekar]

I mean say you had a program that automatically folded all those hands for you, so you don't ever have to touch those tournaments until there's either a.) a playable hand or b.) stack sizes compared to blinds reach a certain level.

Ok. How much would an average player make 8 tabling the $55s?

Good idea, but I am not sure if such a program exists. It would be cool though.

[jaym96822]

Not physically possible unless you run in specifically staggered sets of 10. If you stagger, you give up a huge amount of $/hr. Anyone who 12 tables can tell you about being on the bubble in 8+ games simultaneously. I would not want to be on the bubble of 15 10+1s at the same time.

[HonestIago15]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. How much would an average player make 8 tabling the $55s?

[/ QUOTE ]

An average player? Not much. I suspect a good player (one capable of even attempting the task of 20-tabling) Could get 20-25% ROI (correct me if I'm wrong veterans). Soooo assuming 22.5% (because it's a pain in the ass) you'd get exactly $99 per set. That's 150% of what I consider your very, very generous assumption of 20-tabling the 10's at 30% ROI.

P.S. Not to mention the fact that 20-tabling would cause the time it takes you to play a tournament on average rise drastically, since you'll be holding all of them up.

[citanul]

an average person loses the rake.

citanul

22.5% 8 tabling $55 games?? Can anyone do this??

[citanul]

sure, you buy me a 2nd monitor, and i'll beat the games for that much.

citanul

[Colonel Kataffy]

Nevermind playing 20 tournaments at once. Have you taken into consideration what a pain in the ass it would be just to open 20 tournaments at a time.

But really, if you believe in your "theory" try it out. The sooner you see how difficult it is to 20 table, the sooner you can get back to learning how to beat the 55s.

If you can beat the games for that much, why don't you already have a 2nd monitor? :P

[Mr_J]

If you can hit 15% at the $55s why drop down to the $11s to 20 table?? If you can 20table just do it at the $55s. Course you should drop down when LEARNING to 20table...

The multitabling lower limits vs higher limits is silly. If you can 8 table $11s, you can 8 table $55s. If you have the skill and BR, there's no reason to settle with just the $11s.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. How much would an average player make 8 tabling the $55s?

[/ QUOTE ]

An "average" player would lose money 8 tabling the 55s.

To answer your OP, if I wanted to work that hard (20 tabling) I'd just take overtime at my real job.

But maybe you're on to something... why stop at 20? Why not 100 table the 11s while you're at it? I think that by only 20 tabling, you'd be giving up too much profit.

[TT_fold]

This is an interesting post. I am currently 12-15 tabling the $55 SNGs in sets with great success so far. I'll post my results after my first 1000 (just a few sets away) in a bragging post thinly veiled as something of relevance to the forum. Personally, 12-tabling seems no harder than 4-tabling, though I will never be able to provide statistical proof other than to say that I never feel rushed, nor do I fold marginal hands just because I already have big pairs on 4 of my tables.

That said, I don't think there are many players here that play more tables than I do simultaneously, so to suggest that a typical $55 player could make the jump from 4 to 20 tables is kind of crazy. The few players good enough to 20-table the $11s could probably 20-table the $55s too, rendering your hypothesis useless.

[citanul]

space issues.

citanul

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Good idea, but I am not sure if such a program exists. It would be cool though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a program, it's called sitting out. You can just sit back in for the blinds and UTG/UTG+1 if you fear you'll fold a good hand, in the other positions you probably have time to sit back in if you see a good hand.

That said, the whole idea is ridiculous.

[PickyTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. How much would an average player make 8 tabling the $55s?

[/ QUOTE ]

An "average" player would lose money 8 tabling the 55s.

To answer your OP, if I wanted to work that hard (20 tabling) I'd just take overtime at my real job.

But maybe you're on to something... why stop at 20? Why not 100 table the 11s while you're at it? I think that by only 20 tabling, you'd be giving up too much profit.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure people said the samething about 12 tabling when online poker started.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good idea, but I am not sure if such a program exists. It would be cool though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a program, it's called sitting out. You can just sit back in for the blinds and UTG/UTG+1 if you fear you'll fold a good hand, in the other positions you probably have time to sit back in if you see a good hand.

That said, the whole idea is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not talking about sitting out.

If there were a program out there that would read the cards, and number of players dealt in, and then take an action (fold automatically all hands with 8-10 players that is not a pair, AK or AQ), I would use it.

However, this type of program would be considered a robot and would therefore be illegal to use.

I think the OPs theory is only good, IN THEORY. Yes it is just as profitable to play 5 tables of buyin x as 1 table of buyin y. Where X's buyin is 1/5 that of Y's. But playing less tables leaves less margin for error, and therefore less variance, which is what we're all looking for(we dont want to gamble now do we?).

Now you can say that the 11s offer a better roi then the 55s.

ok, well the 22s are just as beatable, so why not just 10 table the 22s? your playing half as many for twice the buyin. since theyre just as beatable you should have the same roi, in fact, because your playing less tables...you should have a higher roi and therefore a higher $/hr.

Well, if 10tabling the 22s is doable, then why not 8 table the 33s?

wait, People already do this, so your 20tabling idea is good in theory, but in the real world...less is more. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. How much would an average player make 8 tabling the $55s?

[/ QUOTE ]

An "average" player would lose money 8 tabling the 55s.

To answer your OP, if I wanted to work that hard (20 tabling) I'd just take overtime at my real job.

But maybe you're on to something... why stop at 20? Why not 100 table the 11s while you're at it? I think that by only 20 tabling, you'd be giving up too much profit.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because 100 is not possible. 20 is.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]


We are not talking about sitting out.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know. If you can't understand why I made the suggestion, I guess you wouldn't even if I explained.

[freemoney]

lol...theres much more variance the opposite way.

[david050173]

I think you could play 20 tables if you could have a couple of helpers.
a) some way to shrink the tables down so they all fit on 2 screens. Having to scan 5 screens to find a table that needs action is going to be a pain. Ideally you would have a program which would just queue up the tables (if you call maybe it goes on a different screen so you pay attention while all the folded ones go back into a queue)
b) some way to open those tables automatically.

And from past experience the you would be better off doing 22 instead of 11s. The difference in play is minor but you get twice the money.

[TT_fold]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll post my results after my first 1000 (just a few sets away) in a bragging post thinly veiled as something of relevance to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, the results for my first 1,000 $55 SNGs - played in sets - 12-15 tabling. I would usually 12-table if I had a conversation going on AIM, but otherwise I would try to start 14 or 15 tables at the beginning of my set.

Prior to purchasing the same quad monitor setup and stand as Raptor, I 8-tabled SNGs from the $33 to $215 levels with some success, but this represents by far my best month of poker (two days in June, all of July, and one day in August to be exact).

154 1st
128 2nd
110 3rd
39.20% ITM
24.91% ROI (before rakeback)
Profit/tourney: $13.70

Probably not sustainable... I will definitely have played another 1,000 by the end of August, so I will keep you all posted, even though none of you will ever read this post buried at the bottom of a long thread. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Mr_J]

"Profit/tourney:"

That isn't profit per tourney. Profit per tourney is profit/buyin+fee, =$2.45

The idea is silly. If you can 12table the $11s, then you can 12 table the $55s. So why drop down from the $55s to play the $11s, instead of just 12tabling the $55s in the first place??

[bawcerelli]

[ QUOTE ]
And from past experience the you would be better off doing 22 instead of 11s. The difference in play is minor but you get twice the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does everyone else agree with this? Do I need to say muck it and try the 20's?

[tigerite]

I've found the 20's easier to be honest

[TheUsher]

Why not try to get better and jump up in limit with the same 4 tables? It's pretty pointless grinding out 20 tables of 10+1's when you could eventually move up to 4-8 tabling 215's or something. You mentioned that you like watching tv, talking on the phone, etc... and I still get to do this 8tabling 215s. I tried 12 tabling before and could handle that pretty well but I realized that the time to make my decisions gradually decreased which is very very bad for higher limit SNGs. 16 tables might just be the max, even if I tried it for 10+1's. This would mean absolute robotic play, with maybe 85-90% of the correct decisions during the SNGs.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Profit/tourney:"

That isn't profit per tourney. Profit per tourney is profit/buyin+fee, =$2.45

[/ QUOTE ]

No... TT Fold is correct. Profit per tourny is simply your average profit per game:
(total profit)/(games played)

Or equivalently:
(buy-in + fee) x (ROI).