Why SNGs have MORE variance than ring games

[AleoMagus]

Wait... What's that?! MORE variance? huh?

Has aleo lost his mind? Isn't he always saying that they have less variance?

Well, yeah... I have often said that, but I'll tell you why I (sometimes) am actually wrong about that, and why the notion persists, even correctly, that SNGs have more variance.

Because when we look at variance, it really doesn't mean much until we compare it to other things, like our profit, and our Bankroll.

So yeah, if you are one of the good small buy-in players on this forum, with an ROI of 25%, and have limited experience in ring games, then of course SNGs have less variance.

Before I go any further, I'll make one quick assumption about variance. I'll say that in NLHE SNGs, your standard deviation will be about 1.7 buy ins, and I'll assume that in limit HE ring games, your variance is about 16 BB/100.

ok, so what does that mean...

if you are playing ring games with a profit of 1BB/100, then your SD will be roughly 15x your profit/100.

Compare this to a SNG player who has an ROI of 25%. If this player is buying into $11 tourneys, this means his SD is about $18.5/tourney and his profit is $2.75/tourney. His SD/t is only 6.7x his profit/t.

Ok, so what am I talking about here? Didn't I just show that SNGs have less variance (for the thousandth time)

Well, yeah, but this is not always the case. Some players are really good at ring games and suck at SNGs

consider a different situation...

You make 2.5 BB/100 in your ring games and only a 10% ROI in your SNGs

Now it would seem that your SD/100 is only about 6 times as big as your profit/100 (assuming that SD is about the same, which it easily could be)

But, your SNG SD/t is now 16 times as big as your profit/t

...

Anyways, whether you like my assumptions about SD, or my examples, the bottom line is that if you want to know what has more variance, one of the most important factors is how skilled you are at each kind of poker. Well, not exactly, but at least our PERCEPTION of variance will have a lot to do with how much money we are making in relation to the size of swings that we can take.

If you are a small ROI earner, then ring games might have less variance if you are good at them.

Regards
Brad S

[Jman28]

Great post Aleo. Thank you.

[brimstone1]

Bookmarked to use as a reference in the future, great post, thanks.

[TheNoodleMan]

I think this is overly simplistic. Many SNG players with smaller ROIs (10% and under) achieve their results via weak bubble play and limping into 3rd, which greatly reduces their varience.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is overly simplistic. Many SNG players with smaller ROIs (10% and under) achieve their results via weak bubble play and limping into 3rd, which greatly reduces their varience

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, players who squeak ITM a lot will have lower variance but actually not by much at all

Just as an example, consider the following two $11 SNG players, with a 1000 game sample

Player A
1st 175
2nd 125
3rd 75

Player B
1st 75
2nd 125
3rd 250

Player A is agressive and only has an ITM of 37.5% but has a solid ROI of 27.27%. His SD is $19.60/t or, about 1.78 buy-ins

Player B is gets ITM more often with an ITM of 45% but has a weak ROI of only 13.64%. His SD is somewhat lower thanks to his style of play, at only $15.61/t, or about 1.42 buy-ins.

So yeah, I guess player B has a lower variance, but who is going to feel a 1 SD downswing more:

Player A, who would be down 19.60 from his usual profit of $3?

or Player B, who would be down 15.61 from his usual profit of $1.50?

It will take player A, on average, another 5-6 tourneys to recover from this

It will take player B, on average, another 9-10 tourneys to recover

Keep in mind also, that these two example players are pretty extreme in my opinion.

What it really comes down to is that your Standard deviation is not as important as your Standard deviation divided by profit

Regards
Brad S

[citanul]

Thank you for posting this.

I was much much much too sleepy to type all this up in the other thread last night and had to leave it just at the "I've been meaning to say."

And now, hopefully people will be less resentful when I say things like "I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

citanul

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

And now, hopefully people will be less resentful when I say things like "I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

[/ QUOTE ]

At every buy-in, or just the lower ones?

I don't think you literally mean your last sentence, but I'll disagree with it anyway. It's worth considering that the dilemma that Aleo sets up assumes that you have a very good ring game player who is good but not great at SNGs. I think it's more likely that you'll find somebody who is mediocre all around. There are also non-monetary reasons (gasp!) that people might prefer tournaments, and if the earn is even remotely similar that might be enough to swing them.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. People seem to do ok counting BJ for a 1% edge or less.

eastbay

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. People seem to do ok counting BJ for a 1% edge or less.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my ROI right now is around that measly 10% at the 55s, and I just made about 3k in the past 10 days from that game.

Should I stop playing them citanul?

No of course not. An edge is an edge, and as long as you have an appropriate bankroll, then you should exploit it.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my ROI right now is around that measly 10% at the 55s, and I just made about 3k in the past 10 days from that game.

Should I stop playing them citanul?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, surely you must realize the immense stupidity of your post.

I'm very glad that you either a) ran hot or b) played a lot of sngs and all but...

You clearly don't even care what my reasons are for saying what I said, you just want to be a jackass. Meh.

citanul

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my ROI right now is around that measly 10% at the 55s, and I just made about 3k in the past 10 days from that game.

Should I stop playing them citanul?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, surely you must realize the immense stupidity of your post.

I'm very glad that you either a) ran hot or b) played a lot of sngs and all but...

You clearly don't even care what my reasons are for saying what I said, you just want to be a jackass. Meh.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right. Its people like you who would bring my game down, and I wouldnt want other aspiring poker players to listen to "set doctrine" from someone they view as a respected poker player b/c of his moderator tag to try to not beat games that they beat at a 10-15% ROI true long term ROI.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. People seem to do ok counting BJ for a 1% edge or less.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

There are things you can do in BJ that you cannot do in the SNG universe. We both know this.

Also I don't think that people get up to a 1% edge, do they? You probably also know the bulk of reasons why I would say what I say, and just want me to do the typing.

Well - SUCKS TO BE THE FORUM THEN DOESN'T IT BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO OUT.

citanul, who's not going to be un-upset about the little flame war last night for a while.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
No of course not. An edge is an edge, and as long as you have an appropriate bankroll, then you should exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you editted this in there, if not, I just missed it, whatever.

Your statement is false. DO YOU SEE WHY?!

IF YOU DON'T:

It's because you could be using your bankroll for something that has a bigger edge. And from there stem most of my reasons for believing what I do.

citanul

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No of course not. An edge is an edge, and as long as you have an appropriate bankroll, then you should exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you editted this in there, if not, I just missed it, whatever.

Your statement is false. DO YOU SEE WHY?!

IF YOU DON'T:

It's because you could be using your bankroll for something that has a bigger edge. And from there stem most of my reasons for believing what I do.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you are making the assumption that I have a bigger edge in other games. Perhaps Im a horrible ring player. Perhaps I cant multitable them the same way I can multitable sngs.

I could give two dimes about ROI, to be honest. The only thing that matters is hourly rate, because thats your bottom line, and the money you have in your pocket at the end of the day.

[Jason Strasser]

[ QUOTE ]
And now, hopefully people will be less resentful when I say things like "I think if you're going to be going for these games and a 10% ROI, you should just not play them."

[/ QUOTE ]
This cannot be right Citanul.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right. Its people like you who would bring my game down, and I wouldnt want other aspiring poker players to listen to "set doctrine" from someone they view as a respected poker player b/c of his moderator tag to try to not beat games that they beat at a 10-15% ROI true long term ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I didn't say anything about your game. You stated your ROI and your stakes and time span. I told you that that meant you either ran hot or played a ton of games. That has nothing NEGATIVE AT ALL about your game. I don't seek to "bring you down."

Here, I've just been informed my ride is running late, so here's an example:

Say you're playing the 55s, and you have a 10-15% ROI. That's like, $5.5 or $8ish a table.

If you instead learned to play 5/10 for 1.xbb/table/hr you'd be making just about the exact same amount of money.

BUT while when you move up to the 109s or 200s, you're going to beat the games for less, almost always, or maybe hey, you beat them for the same. But the point is that there's a limit to where you can get to with sngs, whereas there's few limits to where you can get to with say, limit ring.

Anyway, that's a bit of it. I really just want to say that I have no idea what the hell you were talking about in that last post.

citanul

[Jason Strasser]

SNGs are more simplistic than most ring games for the same stakes level. Many people who can beat 55 sngs for 10% will not be nearly as big winners in a 1-2 NL cash game, or whatever the 'equivalent'.

-Jason

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right. Its people like you who would bring my game down, and I wouldnt want other aspiring poker players to listen to "set doctrine" from someone they view as a respected poker player b/c of his moderator tag to try to not beat games that they beat at a 10-15% ROI true long term ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I didn't say anything about your game. You stated your ROI and your stakes and time span. I told you that that meant you either ran hot or played a ton of games. That has nothing NEGATIVE AT ALL about your game. I don't seek to "bring you down."

Here, I've just been informed my ride is running late, so here's an example:

Say you're playing the 55s, and you have a 10-15% ROI. That's like, $5.5 or $8ish a table.

If you instead learned to play 5/10 for 1.xbb/table/hr you'd be making just about the exact same amount of money.

BUT while when you move up to the 109s or 200s, you're going to beat the games for less, almost always, or maybe hey, you beat them for the same. But the point is that there's a limit to where you can get to with sngs, whereas there's few limits to where you can get to with say, limit ring.

Anyway, that's a bit of it. I really just want to say that I have no idea what the hell you were talking about in that last post.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just mad that you said people shouldnt play games that they beat at 10% ROI.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
This cannot be right Citanul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah, but why not?

<side note, I don't know if I originally started out of the 10% ROI is meh camp, I think I originally started out at the 5% ROI is meh camp. I'm going to stand by "happiness for 5% ROI is still bad happiness." I may be swayed away from the 10% in time.>

Good to see you posting a bit Jason.

Are you still at Duke? I'm possibly heading out there in the next couple months to visit some friends.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs are more simplistic than most ring games for the same stakes level. Many people who can beat 55 sngs for 10% will not be nearly as big winners in a 1-2 NL cash game, or whatever the 'equivalent'.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Another factor driving my current little crusade is that these 10% players are the ones MOST likely to come around having some like 25x buyin drop or something like that and being totally inconsolable. That is, a part of it is that many of those players are ones that are not going to be rewarded enough monetarilly to psychologically put up with the swings.

citanul

[A_PLUS]

Completely jumping over the last 10 posts, which I dont really care to get involved with.

I was always confused as to why people thought SNGs were lower variance than ring games (at low limits). If you are an adequte poker player, you can achieve 5-8xBB/100 win rate at 25 or 50 max on party.

From my experience (I dont have my PT stats in front of me). 4-tabling low stakes NL ring, is much lower variance than being an adequate (<15% ROI) low limit SNG player. I also think that it is probably higher $/Hr as well, but that of course depends on your skills.

[Jason Strasser]

Hehe, I think my long term ROI in 1ks will even out to about 10%, and I'm pretty sure thats worth my time.

I have been posting a bit, just not in these parts... Except for a few of Unarmed's posts here and there. Ill be at duke in about 2 weeks, if you want to meet up and get drunk or play 1-1 uncapped NL and get stacked off for 300bb, PM me /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

-Jason

[45suited]

For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think nutpeddling 25NL will help many. The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands. This won't work in SNGs because you can't rebuy. Play starts being more realistic at NL100 and is fairly genuine at NL200. No tricky LAGs but everyone is typically a solid player.

[Matt R.]

Okay, I'm in a hurry and I just skimmed your post, so this may be in there somewhere. Apologies if so.

What if we assume exactly equal hourly expectations for limit ring, NL ring, and SNG's (and multis just for fun). Can we estimate what the highest/lowest variance games will be in this case? I think this should be possible, but I'm not sure.

I'd try to figure this out myself, but I have to run (and I think there are some posters on here that would be able to figure this out in much less time than I could). I'm interested in what the lowest variance form of online poker *can* be if you become equally good at all forms.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Hehe, I think my long term ROI in 1ks will even out to about 10%, and I'm pretty sure thats worth my time.

I have been posting a bit, just not in these parts... Except for a few of Unarmed's posts here and there. Ill be at duke in about 2 weeks, if you want to meet up and get drunk AND play 1-1 uncapped NL and get stacked off for 300bb, PM me /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Minor correction necessary.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just simply can't be true. The players down there are really really really bad and unobservant. So why waste the money on advertizing that they're not going to pay any attention to anyway, when you could just skip to "nutpeddle?"

citanul

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that is true. Winning at 800 chips SNGs, has very little to do with 100xBB NL play. I am a MUCH better small stakes NL / MTT player than I am at SNGs. It is mostly b/c post flop play is almost non-existent at the 20s. The optimal cash game post flop play is almost always wrong in a 800 chip SNG. I have only recently started taking SNGs seriously, but I am yet to crush the 20s for >20% ROI.

Party low limit SNGs are a unique animal. They require skill, but those skills are pretty independent from other forms of poker.

[AleoMagus]

If we were really after the game with the lowest overall variance in relation to profit, I suspect it would be a split pot ring game like O8, or maybe Stud8

Regards
Brad S

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just simply can't be true. The players down there are really really really bad and unobservant. So why waste the money on advertizing that they're not going to pay any attention to anyway, when you could just skip to "nutpeddle?"

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Even nutpeddling is less than optimal. Profitable yes, but you are leaving a good bit of money on the table by doing it.

You are at table, with people that are trying to put all of their chips into the pot with TPGK. There are a lot of hands that are ++++++EV other than AQ+

[newhizzle]

quote from mason malmuth's poker essays refering to small(15-20 person) tournaments:

[ QUOTE ]
There is no question that tournaments, whether large or small, offer a significant return on you money if you should happen to get lucky and win. This is the reason why they have become so popular. But the statement i quoted also seems to indicate that small tournaments are a good investment for those on a small bankroll. Is this true? If you are virtually broke, are you better off in these events as opposed to playing in the little games? . . . Does a tournament fit this criteria? In other words, can you have a high win rate and a small standard deviation in these events? Are they a good investment if you currently are struggling to come up with the buy-in? The answer is, probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thoughts, Comments?

My 2 cents:

If we have a player who plays well enough to beat both Sng's and limit ring for an average win rate then he "should" have lower variance per SnG, than ring.

I'll assume 1/2 ring is the same skill level as the $11s.

At the ring tables, the player will experience a downswing of 300BB or $600.00

At the Sng's, the player will experience a downswing of 30 Buyins or $330.00

So that means less variance at the SnGs. I think Aleo used different statistics to come up with his conclusions (I saw lots of SD numbers in there /images/graemlins/confused.gif) but I dont think they are all that relevent.

If I deposit $400.00 to my account, Id want to play SnGs.

[A_PLUS]

Yeah, I dont know if Mason knew about 8-tabling party SNGs

Thanks Brad for the thoughtful examples. I have a couple simple principled reasons which indicate SNG will generally produce higer variance at a comparable skill/dollar level (e.g., 22's sng V. 25$NL ring:

1. in the ring game you are making many, relavtively, small gambles (hands), say 60/hr; 1-25$ each, with most less than 5$). Compare that to a SNG with ~1-2 gambles (tournys) per hour for 22$ each.

2. In a ring game the probability of winning each gamble is ~0.5. In an SNG it is ~0.3. The opportunity for a series of losses (i.e., running bad) is proportional the size of the probability of lossing each gamble.

Example: loosing 5 gambles in a row

a) ring game: p=.5^5 = 0.031
b sng p = 0.7^5 = 0.17

Over 5x greater for the sng in this example (not a linear relationship).

Further, b/c the size of the gambles are greater for sng the amount of money lost when running bad (or won when running good) is much greater:

5 x ~3$ (a guess as to avg loss in a ring game hand) =15$

5 x 22$ = 110$

I think that generally for a comparable skill level (i.e., assuming you don't play 5+1 sng and 1000$NL ring games) the sng will have far greater variance. This is certainly my personal experience. I have approximately the same hourly income in both but my swings in SNG is ~10-fold greater.

Brett

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just simply can't be true. The players down there are really really really bad and unobservant. So why waste the money on advertizing that they're not going to pay any attention to anyway, when you could just skip to "nutpeddle?"

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]


Have you ever sat at an NL50 table with $575 before after getting a medicocre run of cards? I think you are underestimating the ability of the low limit player to use basic logic...

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
My 2 cents:

If we have a player who plays well enough to beat both Sng's and limit ring for an average win rate then he "should" have lower variance per SnG, than ring.

I'll assume 1/2 ring is the same skill level as the $11s.

At the ring tables, the player will experience a downswing of 300BB or $600.00

At the Sng's, the player will experience a downswing of 30 Buyins or $330.00

So that means less variance at the SnGs. I think Aleo used different statistics to come up with his conclusions (I saw lots of SD numbers in there /images/graemlins/confused.gif) but I dont think they are all that relevent.

If I deposit $400.00 to my account, Id want to play SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit is high variance by nature. What about NL ring 25$max ~~11s.

I dont know, Ive never been any good at NL ring, I have no basis for comparison.

The OP's subject didnt specify which type of ring game, I just used one that could disprove his theory.

[SuitedSixes]

Game A (Sample size 1175 events)

$/event $0.95
SD$/event $17.90
Bankroll required for .5% ROR = $1388
Multitable earn = $23.69/hr

Game B (Sample size = 930 events)
$/event = $6.83
SD$/event = $83.41
Bankroll required for 0.5% ROR = $2699.18
Multitable earn = $24.24/hr


Both of these allow me to make my weekly nut (if I play the required number of hours). If my concerns are (in order):

Lowest ROR
Smaller bankroll swings
Profitability

Which game should I play?

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
If I deposit $400.00 to my account, Id want to play SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true for you, but I think that it misses the point of this thread

It's not NECESSARILY true for all people, because your skill levels can vary quite a bit from one form of poker to the next.

Regards
Brad S

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I deposit $400.00 to my account, Id want to play SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true for you, but I think that it misses the point of this thread

It's not NECESSARILY true for all people, because your skill levels can vary quite a bit from one form of poker to the next.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If a player could beat ring tables more than he could beat SnGs, he should be playing them. I dont think this is relevant though, if we want an accurate estimate of variance, we should assume identical ability in both.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
This just simply can't be true. The players down there are really really really bad and unobservant. So why waste the money on advertizing that they're not going to pay any attention to anyway, when you could just skip to "nutpeddle?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Advertising is unnecessary in 25 NL. Most of my profit in 25 NL comes from 3 sources:

1) Nut peddling (of course)
2) Value betting in short handed pots
3) Snapping off the bluffs of habitual bluffers

I really don't see any reason why a player on the 11s with an ROI of 10% or below should not try 25 NL. The money is good and it will improve their overall play.

I understand that SNG's are a unique animal, but to say that improving one's post flop play will not help in SNGs is obviously wrong as there is still SOME post flop play in SNGs. It can even help your heads up game a LOT if you arrive to the final two with the blinds low enough to not be in push / fold mode. If you could increase your 1st / 2nd ratio in this manner, your ROI would jump dramatically.

But anyway, back to the OP. I have a relatively small sample in 25 NL, but I think that the play there is so weak that my variance could actually be lower in that game (even though I crush lower limit SNGs). I honestly don't have a large enough sample size to give this answer with any certainty though.

The SNG format, although one can become very skilled at it, still becomes an all-in luckfest to a certain extent when the blinds get high. In 25 NL, nut peddling against an opponent who thinks TPTK is the nuts (and will put all his money in with it, which is not uncommon) really cuts down on variance.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
if we want an accurate estimate of variance, we should assume identical ability in both.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a way, this notion is what I'm really so opposed to in this thread.

What the heck is identical ability in both?

So many of the skills required are so different. I know a lot of players who can crush one game, but are losers in another. Or, for the purposes of this thread, can crush one game, but only make a very small profit in another. This is not uncommon.

Regards
Brad S

Ok, good point, Im definatly guilty of that.

[gildwulf]

I think all of you are missing an extremely important point: ROI is not set in stone, and SNGs are a learning process. Just because someone has 10% ROI at the 20s doesn't mean they will have 10% ROI at the 20s 4 months from now. So telling someone they should only play cash games because they aren't good enough (yet!) at SNGs is, well, pretty silly.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all of you are missing an extremely important point: ROI is not set in stone, and SNGs are a learning process. Just because someone has 10% ROI at the 20s doesn't mean they will have 10% ROI at the 20s 4 months from now. So telling someone they should only play cash games because they aren't good enough (yet!) at SNGs is, well, pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... My point was that I don't understand why struggling SNGers don't try ring games in order to improve their overall play. (Especially when 25 NL is so soft.)

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
Game A (Sample size 1175 events)

$/event $0.95
SD$/event $17.90
Bankroll required for .5% ROR = $1388
Multitable earn = $23.69/hr

Game B (Sample size = 930 events)
$/event = $6.83
SD$/event = $83.41
Bankroll required for 0.5% ROR = $2699.18
Multitable earn = $24.24/hr


Both of these allow me to make my weekly nut (if I play the required number of hours). If my concerns are (in order):

Lowest ROR
Smaller bankroll swings
Profitability

Which game should I play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually a little confused here. You make $.95 per event with game A, but still get $23.69/hr multitabling. So whatever this game is, you get about 25 of them in each hour.

This as opposed to the other game where you make $6.83 but get less than 4 each hour.

See, when we start talking about different amounts of multitabling things get even more complicated

If our SD after 1 event is x, our SD after n events is x*SQRT(n)

So, if you want to know your SD/hr at these two games, what it really looks like is something like this...

Game A
(17.90)(SQRT(25)) or, about $89.50

Game B
(83.41)(SQRT(4)) or, about $167

So, given the very close profit levels in the two games, and given your listed concerns, I'd say game A is the clear winner with no other info.

Of course other info can be quite important here. Like I don't know what game you are getting 25 of each hour, but that doesn't seem like much fun however creative I get imagining it. Also, the game with bigger SD can have huge long term expecation not accounted for because it might further develop your game or allow you to eventually add more tables/move up, etc... But then you didn't list these things in your concerns

I'd love to know what these two games are

Also, don't misunderstand me. While I am talking about variance here, and while I occasionally talk about ROR also, I have never put much personal emphasis in any of these things.

The real point is just that it isn't as simple as saying "this game has lower variance than this other game".

Regards
Brad S

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually a little confused here. You make $.95 per event with game A, but still get $23.69/hr multitabling. So whatever this game is, you get about 25 of them in each hour.


[/ QUOTE ]

I included rakeback in the multitable factor, because when deciding which game to play the only concern I really have is if I can make my nut or not. Game A is 16-tabling ring games (I actually 19 table, but don't keep track of the other site on PT so I have no idea what my stats are there just that it adds to my hourly earn. Game B is my current SNG level ($55s, and I am most comfortable 3-tabling those).

[ QUOTE ]

This as opposed to the other game where you make $6.83 but get less than 4 each hour.

See, when we start talking about different amounts of multitabling things get even more complicated

If our SD after 1 event is x, our SD after n events is x*SQRT(n)

So, if you want to know your SD/hr at these two games, what it really looks like is something like this...

Game A
(17.90)(SQRT(25)) or, about $89.50

Game B
(83.41)(SQRT(4)) or, about $167


So, given the very close profit levels in the two games, and given your listed concerns, I'd say game A is the clear winner with no other info.

Of course other info can be quite important here. Like I don't know what game you are getting 25 of each hour, but that doesn't seem like much fun however creative I get imagining it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game A is neither fun nor imaginative, which is why the correct answer for me is C . . . a mixture of the two. If I had to play 40 hours a week of either game I'd go insane.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the game with bigger SD can have huge long term expecation not accounted for because it might further develop your game or allow you to eventually add more tables/move up, etc... But then you didn't list these things in your concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point I have no long term concerns, only short term ones, but it is not likely that I am learning anything playing 16 games at a time.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to know what these two games are

Also, don't misunderstand me. While I am talking about variance here, and while I occasionally talk about ROR also, I have never put much personal emphasis in any of these things.

The real point is just that it isn't as simple as saying "this game has lower variance than this other game".

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I really just wanted to show some numbers so we can have some kind of idea of how to go about comparing the different species.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed... My point was that I don't understand why struggling SNGers don't try ring games in order to improve their overall play. (Especially when 25 NL is so soft.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing 25 NL will improve your overall 'poker play'. Whatever that means. It may or may not help your 10$ SNG play. You are acting like this is gospel, but I think it is far from it. I think 25NL play greatly improves your SNG play on UB, FTP, etc. Where there is room for losing a post flop pot and still winning the event. On party poker, with 800 chips, there is NO WAY the optimal post flop strategy from 25NL and a 10$SNG are anywhere close. If you think they are, you are playing one of them very poorly.

Instead of the generic "post flop play". How about an example. B/c everyone I can think of, my strategy is night and day. I think learning the game as a NL cash player has hurt my low level SNG play. I am constantly having to catch myself from making the correct Cash play / MTT play (I think they relate a lot better).

I think NL cash experience will help you as you move up in limits and stacks get somewhat deeper, but I dont see it in the 10-20$ range

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 25 NL will improve your overall 'poker play'. Whatever that means. It may or may not help your 10$ SNG play. You are acting like this is gospel, but I think it is far from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that gives you greater understanding about poker will help your play, even in SNGs. I try to keep SNGs as simple as anybody, but post-flop play does occur, even in 800 chip games.

[ QUOTE ]
On party poker, with 800 chips, there is NO WAY the optimal post flop strategy from 25NL and a 10$SNG are anywhere close. If you think they are, you are playing one of them very poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that post flop play never occurs in a 800 chip SNG? Situations come up frequently, say from level 3 on, where you might be in a shorthanded pot, maybe out of the blinds. Playing NL cash games has given me the courage to make a read and stick with it, putting money into the pot with less than a premium hand or less than top pair.

As for the rest of your comment, you're probably right. I am the worst 30%+ ROI player (on the 11s) in the history of Partypoker.

Recently, this forum seems to have degenerated into a bunch of bitter, angry people who look to throw out personal insults at the first opportunity rather than talk about poker strategy. I admit that I'm not the greatest player on this forum, but I will gladly accept a challenge from you if you'd like to see how poor of a player that I am over a large number of 11s.

And as I said earlier, becoming a better post flop player can help you to increase your ratio of 1sts / 2nds, especially with the new blinds structure. There is actually sometimes room for postflop play when down to two players. This alone (increasing your 1sts) would make NL cash game play worth it for the low level guys.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing 25 NL will improve your overall 'poker play'. Whatever that means. It may or may not help your 10$ SNG play. You are acting like this is gospel, but I think it is far from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that gives you greater understanding about poker will help your play, even in SNGs. I try to keep SNGs as simple as anybody, but post-flop play does occur, even in 800 chip games.

[ QUOTE ]
On party poker, with 800 chips, there is NO WAY the optimal post flop strategy from 25NL and a 10$SNG are anywhere close. If you think they are, you are playing one of them very poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that post flop play never occurs in a 800 chip SNG? Situations come up frequently, say from level 3 on, where you might be in a shorthanded pot, maybe out of the blinds. Playing NL cash games has given me the courage to make a read and stick with it, putting money into the pot with less than a premium hand or less than top pair.

As for the rest of your comment, you're probably right. I am the worst 30%+ ROI player (on the 11s) in the history of Partypoker.

Recently, this forum seems to have degenerated into a bunch of bitter, angry people who look to throw out personal insults at the first opportunity rather than talk about poker strategy. I admit that I'm not the greatest player on this forum, but I will gladly accept a challenge from you if you'd like to see how poor of a player that I am over a large number of 11s.

And as I said earlier, becoming a better post flop player can help you to increase your ratio of 1sts / 2nds, especially with the new blinds structure. There is actually sometimes room for postflop play when down to two players. This alone (increasing your 1sts) would make NL cash game play worth it for the low level guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, what are you talking about? You really need to chill out. I have no idea who you are, or what you know about poker. Honestly, I dont really care if you have 200% ROI. I am trying to argue a point, thats it.

I didnt say you were bad at SNGs. I said it you follow the same post flop strategy at 25NL and 10$ SNGs, one of them HAS to be very wrong. The correct strategies are unique to the game.

I see your point in that if you have never played cash poker, playing anything post flop can be intimaidating. and ring play can cure that. I am talking about lots and lots of ring play. If you arent already a good SNG player, those habits (that win $$ in ring play) are tough to break when switching to SNGs. Trying to learn both at the same time will probably do more harm than good.

Lastly, I didnt mean to insult you, I have no idea as to the quality of your play. But if you want to challenge me to any sort of HU match, I am always game /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[45suited]

Okay, sorry if I took you the wrong way.

I guess that my situation is the opposite of yours. I started playing poker on SNGs. I had very good success, but I felt that my game was one dimensional.

I started playing ring games and I did have the fear that it would hurt my SNG game for the reasons that you mentioned. But I found that it helped out alot. Sure there are different considerations, but still, most low level guys suck so bad post flop that if you can improve your understanding of post flop play, you're really helping yourself out alot.

As for a heads-up game, I'll have to get a Pokerstars account, which I have been planning on doing so that I can participte in some of these forum games.

Anyway, I hate flame wars, so let's just move on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

16 table ring games?

Limit or NL?

What stakes?

Thanks

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Hehe, I think my long term ROI in 1ks will even out to about 10%, and I'm pretty sure thats worth my time.

I have been posting a bit, just not in these parts... Except for a few of Unarmed's posts here and there. Ill be at duke in about 2 weeks, if you want to meet up and get drunk or play 1-1 uncapped NL and get stacked off for 300bb, PM me /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

im down, set it up punk /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
but to say that improving one's post flop play will not help in SNGs is obviously wrong as there is still SOME post flop play in SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only did I not say otherwise, but I don't believe anyone previously in this thread was talking about playing NL ring as a method to improve your SNG play. I believe that NL ring was brough up strictly as an alternative to playing SNGs in this thread. There are other threads about playing other games to improve your SNG play. This is not one of them.

citanul

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I have no long term concerns, only short term ones, but it is not likely that I am learning anything playing 16 games at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

People mention learning and multitabling once in a while, so not just to you, but I think you can learn an awful lot, very quickly playing 16 tables, just not necessarily while you are in the game.

[NiR]

[ QUOTE ]
For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

i actually agree with this.i have a preety good roi in the 22's of 22% (lol) and itm 42%, and i have been told that it is partly because of my NL background. i think playing NL cash is a great way to improve your game and learn better post flop play which alot of sng players lack.

[NiR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think nutpeddling 25NL will help many. The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands. This won't work in SNGs because you can't rebuy. Play starts being more realistic at NL100 and is fairly genuine at NL200. No tricky LAGs but everyone is typically a solid player.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes atleast multitable the 100's i should have added.

[NiR]

[ QUOTE ]
My 2 cents:

If we have a player who plays well enough to beat both Sng's and limit ring for an average win rate then he "should" have lower variance per SnG, than ring.

I'll assume 1/2 ring is the same skill level as the $11s.

At the ring tables, the player will experience a downswing of 300BB or $600.00

At the Sng's, the player will experience a downswing of 30 Buyins or $330.00

So that means less variance at the SnGs. I think Aleo used different statistics to come up with his conclusions (I saw lots of SD numbers in there /images/graemlins/confused.gif) but I dont think they are all that relevent.

If I deposit $400.00 to my account, Id want to play SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

11's are in my opinion equavalent to 25's and 22's are equavalent to 50's in skill wise. but profit i believe in sngs are more compared to its counterpart if your beating it at 16%+

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For people on the 11s and 22s who can only muster a 5-10% ROI, I think that there is another reason why they might want to consider ring games.

The 11s and 22s are so easily crushable (20% or more) that if you are at 5-10%, there must be large holes in your game. If some of these guys would play 25 NL for a while, their understanding of poker in general and post flop play in particular would improve greatly. This could only help their SNG game in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think nutpeddling 25NL will help many. The optimal strategy for those games is to advertise insanely for the first couple of orbits then wait for big hands. This won't work in SNGs because you can't rebuy. Play starts being more realistic at NL100 and is fairly genuine at NL200. No tricky LAGs but everyone is typically a solid player.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes atleast multitable the 100's i should have added.

[/ QUOTE ]

the NL200 and NL400 tables are a joke. pot half the hands preflop, if theres only 2 people left on the flop, 2/3 pot EVERY flop. its almost like cheating. holla

[Izverg04]

[ QUOTE ]
Game A (Sample size 1175 events)

$/event $0.95
SD$/event $17.90
Bankroll required for .5% ROR = $1388
Multitable earn = $23.69/hr

Game B (Sample size = 930 events)
$/event = $6.83
SD$/event = $83.41
Bankroll required for 0.5% ROR = $2699.18
Multitable earn = $24.24/hr


Both of these allow me to make my weekly nut (if I play the required number of hours). If my concerns are (in order):

Lowest ROR
Smaller bankroll swings
Profitability

Which game should I play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Utility models provide us with a notion of the "Certainty Equivalent", a risk-adjusted value of a bet. Blackjack players, who tend to be a more mathematically inclined bunch then poker players, know all about it:

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm

Any rational gambler makes decisions to maximize CE or CE/hr, not EV or EV/hr.

When all possible payoffs of a gamble are small compared to your bankroll (applies to any poker game except for MTTs or jackpot games), CE=EV-Var/2R, where the second term is the cost of variance. R can be interpreted as a Kelly bankroll -- you can use R=1/3 or 1/4 bankroll. R is the single scalar parameter that describes your current risk tolerance.

Guessing that your R is on the order of $1000, I get:

Game A: CE/hr=$20/hr
Game B: CE/hr=$12/hr

[SuitedSixes]

Thanks for posting this.

[ QUOTE ]
What is "Certainty Equivalent"?

A3: Would you rather make a bet of $200 on a coin flip with an average profit of $20 or accept $5 risk-free? Would $10 risk-free persuade you not to make the bet? How about $15? Your "certainty equivalent" (or risk-free equivalent) is the amount that participation in the bet is worth to you. -- perhaps $5, $10, or $15 in this example.

The Kelly criterion with Kelly number 0.3 advises you to maximize the expected value of u(x) = x^(1-1/k) / (1-1/k), where k = 0.3 and x is your resulting bankroll. If your bankroll is $10,000 then the $200 bet gives an average value of u(x) of

55% * u(10200) + 45% * u(9800) = some number

If instead you were offered an amount "CE" risk-free the average value of u(x) would be

100% * u(10000 + CE) = some other number

These two expressions are equal when CE = $13.38. This is the "certainty equivalent" of the above bet for you if you are a Kelly better with the Kelly Number 0.3 and with a $10,000 bankroll. This amount, $13.38, is how much participation in the bet is worth to you. In particular, if the CE for this bet were negative the bet would be worth a negative amount to you and you should avoid it if possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wish that I understood it. Is it essentially saying that for my R Game A is a better choice? If my R is higher than I assume Game B becomes a better choice.