PDA

View Full Version : A question about ROI%


Blindcurve
08-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Is there any point in trying to play SNG's without rakeback?

It seems like beating the rake is brutal without it. If I'm not mistaken, break even is 33% ITM, assuming even placement in the prize distribution. I know this is supposed to be attainable and sustainable; it just doesn't seems attainable for a lot of players (read: me. Granted, my sample size is laughable. Hope springs eternal...) For any player who doesn't attain this, they're just losing money--why play? I understand this circumstance is good for sufficiently winning players, and it's even better if most players don't understand how much they have to win to make a profit in the long run. I don't really feel like losing $50 dollars out of every $1000 invested if I can at all help it. I just feel like a fish.

I know the answer is: Learn and get better. My problem is I don't have rakeback at the site where I grind my SNG's out. I don't see any legitimate way to get it. If I can only manage 30% ITM with even placement across the prizes, does it make logical sense to continue to play SNG's to make money?

I understand it might make sense on a personal level, to improve my play, but I'm not making a profit with those numbers, right?



Am I way off base?
Is there a post already covering this?

FOITNOF,

-D.

Slim Pickens
08-09-2005, 07:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any point in trying to play SNG's without rakeback?

[/ QUOTE ]
Rakeback is free money. Is there any point in turning down free money?

[ QUOTE ]
For any player who doesn't attain this, they're just losing money--why play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Fun?

[ QUOTE ]
If I can only manage 30% ITM with even placement across the prizes, does it make logical sense to continue to play SNG's to make money?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, of course not.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand it might make sense on a personal level, to improve my play, but I'm not making a profit with those numbers, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why ask us? You're the one looking at the numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
Am I way off base?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't even tell if you're in the stadium.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a post already covering this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably.

Lori
08-09-2005, 07:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I just feel like a fish.


[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is that if you can't get over 33% ITM at $5 or $10 SNGs, you probably are a fish.

Luckily you're in the right place to help with that.

Just imagine, you could be playing ring games where the rake really IS brutal.

Lori

Paul2432
08-09-2005, 07:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine, you could be playing ring games where the rake really IS brutal.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what level you play. At higher buy-ins rake is much better in ring games. I am sure you seen some of those 25/50 blind NL hands where someone wins $12000 and pays $3 in rake. Compare that to a step 5 where the rake is nearly 10 times the highest ring game rake.

Paul

Blindcurve
08-09-2005, 07:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand it might make sense on a personal level, to improve my play, but I'm not making a profit with those numbers, right?


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


Why ask us? You're the one looking at the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made a mistake, and haven't been clear.

I'm not looking at the numbers. My numbers are worse than this plausible, if not worst case, scenario. However, my sample size is so small as to be non-applicable, so I'm not overly concerned. I've just done some math, which I'm not sure is correct, that indicates what I need to accomplish.

I'm asking if my projections are correct.

I'm also asking if anyone here, right-minded or otherwise, plays large numbers (>1000) of SNG's without rakeback and makes a profit worth mentioning. "Worth mentioning" is going to be an opinion; I don't care what their numbers are, just that they feel it's profit "worth mentioning" in a sample size adequate for analysis. I suppose it would also be helpful if they mentioned whether they felt that they were in their right mind - for the sake of thoroughness. No documentation certifying sanity or lack thereof is necessary, however.

Sure, I'd love free money- I can't get it. I'm trying to decide if it's worth playing without it. I understand the final decision is up to me. I would just like more information.

Sorry for the confusion.

FOITNOF,

-D.

Pokerscott
08-09-2005, 08:08 PM
Rakeback is around +2% ROI (e.g. $2 on a $100 buyin). Anyone claiming to have an ROI > 2% (and most here would) could technically play without rakeback and still 'beat the game'

Pokerscott

Lori
08-09-2005, 09:12 PM
You are right of course Paul.

People do need to be aware though that in a SNG they get 50 hands for only one portion of rake, so they should factor that in when working it out.

Sorry to be misleading /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Lori

SammyKid11
08-09-2005, 09:23 PM
ROI factors in the buy-in AND the entry fee. Thus, if your ROI is .1%, you are technically making money (though at a very low rate). Your post seems to confuse your ITM% and your ROI. Yeah, a 30% ITM is not great and it's unlikely you'll make any real money with that...however, if you placed first every time you got ITM, your ROI would still be quite substantial (more than 36%). So clear those things up in your head before trying to wrap your mind around the question.

One I have for you. . .why not get rakeback? There are LOTS of sites out there and LOTS of affiliates who will set you up with a rakeback deal. While you can certainly make money at SnG's without rakeback, it makes much more sense to go through the 24-hour hassle of getting it...you don't even need a clean computer if you find an affiliate who simply signs you up.

There are many for you to choose from.