Limit Ring vs. SNG profitability (and variance)

[swiftrhett]

Everyone says Limit and NL rings are more profitable than SNGs. I've just done some calculations, and here are some thoughts I'd like feedback on.

For this example, I'm comparing a limit ring tabler 4-tabling 5 hours / day, 30 days / month. I'm comparing a SNG player 4 tabling the same amount of time.

From the limit ring forum, I find that a really good expectation is 2 BB / 100 hands. From the SNG forum, about 22% ROI is really good. So, I'm calculating this for a more average 2+2 player that can either do 1 BB / 100, or 10% ROI at the SNGs.

For ring games, I find that equates to 37500 games (at 250 / hour), which is $375 BB / month expected value and $309 BB / month variance (at 16 BB/hour variance).

For SNGS, I find the profit is about 10% of your total bet and a variance of about 4.4% of your total bet.

This means that a person could play the $11 SNGS for $600 / month profit and a variance of $269 or the 0.5/1 rings for $375 profit / month and $309 variance.

So, while the SNGs clearly seem better at low limits, why do people play ring? I think the answer is that the fish play effectively higher ring game limits. If you can sustain 1 BB / 100 at 15/30 limit, that's $11k / month profit. Sustaining the same level at the $109 sngs is only $6k / month profit.

[whodaman]

1bb/100 at .5/1 is pretty bad... well below average. You should double it to 2bb/100.

[bobbyi]

Four tabling ring games is easier than four tabling sng's because at the end sng's get very shorthanded. Playing heads up on two differenet tables while playing four handed on two others is tough. With ring games, you never have to do that unless you want to. With sng's, the difference between second and first place (and so forth) is signficant, so you need to be playing well at the end when it gets short which requires really focussing on your opponent(s) and this hard while your attention is split four ways.

I'm not much of a sng player, so this is just my impression from the little that I have dabbled with them.

[CallMeIshmael]

I was going to reply the opposite.

I find it easier to 8-table SNGs.


Just because most of your decisions are made only preflop, when you either move in or fold a large % of the time.

[ThaHero]

How did you equate 15/30 with the 109s?

15/30 at 300bb bankrool would require 9k(though it probably wouldn't be bad to have more). For SNGs I've read that 30 buyins is a decent BR. So that would be roughly 3k. Would it be more accurate to compare it to the 215s, which would require close to 6k or more? Or are you judging on availability of games?(I'm not sure how available 215s are)

[Weatherhead03]

Exactly and the fact that if you are to 4-table SNG's and be down to four handed almost all of the time with all four tables then your ROI will be a hell of a lot higher than 10%.

[Moonsugar]

30 buyins at 109 is a good way to go broke

[ThaHero]

Thanks for the advice.

What's a more realistic bankroll for high sngs?

[Moonsugar]

100 should be good. Worst I had was 33 when I played $55 exclusively and my win rate is lower at 109s and my variance is higher so sooner or later pain will come /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Also, I would echo earlier sentiments in the thread that SnG are easier to multitable well then ring games. At least for me, YMMV.

[wonkadaddy]

at smaller stakes SnG's can have equivalent profitability as cash games w/MUCH less variance.

the top end for SnG earnings is a lot less, however, as they're not played for the same stakes as cash games.