Did anyone ever figure out if 33s are more profitable than 55s?

[Karak567]

I heard a lot of discussion about this but never really saw a result. I am at the point where I can easily move up to 55s but if anyone had any info on the profitability of 55s vs 33s I'd appreciate it. My use of the search function came up short.

[wulfheir]

Your ROI would have to drop >40% of it's current amount for it to be a bad move.
ie. 20% ROI @ 33 = 12% ROI @ 55
15% ROI @ 33 = 9% ROI @ 55

I don't know if that's what you mean or not.

[AliasMrJones]

My sample size is, of course, not big enough to say anything definitive, but my ROI is virtually the same 33->55. I think it is both the additional chips at the 55's and that I've improved my play significantly (particularly bubble/ITM push/fold strategy) since I started the 33's. So, at least for me, the 55's have been more profitable at least on a $/tourney basis.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ROI would have to drop >40% of it's current amount for it to be a bad move.
ie. 20% ROI @ 33 = 12% ROI @ 55
15% ROI @ 33 = 9% ROI @ 55

I don't know if that's what you mean or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed (I missed the earlier discussion) that it was a combination of the competition becoming more difficult AND the 1000 chip stacks making for a longer game that would make them less profitable.

[BadMongo]

That may be true for $/game, but we only really care about $/hour. Since 55s take longer on average than the 33s, your ROI at the 33s would not have to be THAT much higher than at the 55s for them to be as profitable.

I don't really have any reliable data to figure this out for sure, but I suspect that the 55s will still be more profitable despite the increase in average game length.

[Nicholasp27]

that's true for $/tourney, but if u are looking at profit/hour, then you need to account for tourney length...how long are people's 55s and 33s lasting?

also, if u can multi-table more 33s than 55s, then that has to figure into the equation

opp's being better, your playing scared, etc are already accounted for in the roi, so aren't factors in the equation

roi*#of tourneys/hour * buy-in = profit/hour

your buy-in increases from 33 to 55, but if roi or #tourneys/hour drops enough to offset that, then 33s are better

[MegaBet]

$55s are more profitable.

[downtown]

I moved from 4x33 to 8x33s to make more profit, which is an alternate consideration to moving up (Though this is in part because right now I have 60+ buyins for the 33s and 35+ for the 55s, which doesn't seem to be an issue for you.) But I expect to make even more still when I move to 8x55s. This doesn't really answer your question, but it's my plan to pay the bills with the 55s, not the 33s. I am a big fan of moving up quickly though, so take this with a grain of salt. Again, just my ramblings...

[MegaBet]

[ QUOTE ]
But I expect to make even more still when I move to 8x55s.

[/ QUOTE ]

See you there...mwhahahahahahahaha! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Don]

The 200 extra chips gives a bigger edge to the better players. If you think you are one of these players then the 55s are defintely more profitable (especially given that they are high stakes and more earning potential etc...).
I can't imagine playing in the 800 chip SNGs ever again. I think people really underestimate the postive aspects of getting the extra 200 chips.

FWIW, I think the 22s are more profitable than the 33s. There are WAY more donks early and the play is WAY weaker on the bubble. These differences in the level of play make up for the 50% IMO.

[Irieguy]

If you are talking about me vs. Zen in the "pwning at a lower limit" bet, we're close to done.

I've played 400 and Zen has played 300+.

Of course, this is meaningless in terms of what you are looking to figure out. We're just playing one set of 500 and I'm going to smoke Zen pretty handily.

The bottom line is that it's close.

The better you are, the more sense it makes to play higher... that's the bottom line.

Irieguy