Would you be a winning player at your level if...

[pearljam]

You sat out the first 2 levels?

[splashpot]

This is what I do 90% of the time anyways.

[llabb]

This is only interesting if you divide it by buy-in levels, and see where the dropoff occurs. I am guessing the answer is clearly yes at the lower buy-ins, gets close around the $55's, and starts to lean towards no at the $109's.

[stupidsucker]

The drop off has been noted many times to be the 109s.
Making money at the 55s sitting out the first 2 levels should be fairly easy, especially if you practice good table selection.

At the 109s with good table and seat selection I think you could, but my guess is pure guess. I have not played enough 109s to be an authority.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
especially if you practice good table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hear people saying this sometimes. How is it possible to practice table selection? The only thing I can think of is the time of day you play. Otherwise it's random who sits at your table.

[lorinda]

Sit down after your opponents, not before them

Lori

[TheNoodleMan]

I think this idea of sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev. At the beginning of hand 1, the worst players and the best players all have the same number of chips. At the end of hand 20, there is a very good chance that a bad player has given away all of his chips, I want to give myself every chance to get those chips.
Even if you could be a winning player while sitting out level 1 and 2, why would you even consider it?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this idea of sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev. At the beginning of hand 1, the worst players and the best players all have the same number of chips. At the end of hand 20, there is a very good chance that a bad player has given away all of his chips, I want to give myself every chance to get those chips.
Even if you could be a winning player while sitting out level 1 and 2, why would you even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you consider it? to maximize the number of tables played. at the lower buyins, your skill advantage doesnt stem as much from early level play as much as it does from playing when the blinds get bigger. you can add more tables instead of playing hands early.. it makes your $/hr shoot way up. who cares about roi. $/hr is all that matters.

if you are playing a 109+, then obv sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev, and may make you a losing player. in fact, it more than likely would. in the 109s and 215s, you can pick up a lot of chips just being aggressive in the first couple levels. to not have that ability is very very bad. in the 22s and such, the first couple levels are useless to me. holla

[TheNoodleMan]

point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

[bones]

I have a feeling that sitting out 2 levels and still winning over the long run would be significantly more difficult than most people here realize.

There's a very big difference between playing tight the first 2 levels and sitting them out.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that sitting out 2 levels and still winning over the long run would be significantly more difficult than most people here realize.

There's a very big difference between playing tight the first 2 levels and sitting them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there'a big difference, but that wasn't the question. Even if you drop 10% ROI you can still be 'winning'.

I don't know what the average player's BB/Hand is in level 1 is. For me it is +.06 in level 1 and .02 in level 2. If I just sat out completely I'd be around -.15 in each. For me it doesn't seem like it would make a big difference.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, when im playing large numbers of tables, i start them as soon as i bust. i never stagger. i dont care what lvl the tournament is on. there are so many that everything staggers itself anyways.

as far as playing early stages in the 22s and such, my roi would probably go up 5-7% if i played the best early game possible. i open shove with QQ, KK, AA for lvls 1-2 when im 20+ tabling. just fyi. holla

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, when im playing large numbers of tables, i start them as soon as i bust. i never stagger. i dont care what lvl the tournament is on. there are so many that everything staggers itself anyways.

as far as playing early stages in the 22s and such, my roi would probably go up 5-7% if i played the best early game possible. i open shove with QQ, KK, AA for lvls 1-2 when im 20+ tabling. just fyi. holla

[/ QUOTE ]
interesting. thanks for the insight into your method <font color="white">or madness, which ever it may be. </font>

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what the average player's BB/Hand is in level 1 is. For me it is +.06 in level 1 and .02 in level 2. If I just sat out completely I'd be around -.15 in each. For me it doesn't seem like it would make a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't factoring in the chips gained when you do play, and how much it effects your chances to finish first.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there'a big difference, but that wasn't the question. Even if you drop 10% ROI you can still be 'winning'

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people don't beat the game, even on this board. Certainly 80% (or whatever the vote is at now) don't beat it for more than 10%.

[The4Aces]

raptor do you play any other hands? or just fold the rest?

[stupidsucker]

You aren't factoring in the chips gained when you do play, and how much it effects your chances to finish first.

don't forget to factor in that you never bust or bleed a single chip if you sit out though.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there'a big difference, but that wasn't the question. Even if you drop 10% ROI you can still be 'winning'

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people don't beat the game, even on this board. Certainly 80% (or whatever the vote is at now) don't beat it for more than 10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess I was just speaking for myself then.

[bones]

The catch to this question is this:

I think everyone agrees that to overcome this disadvantage, you'd have to be extremely good at pushbotting/bubble play. Those who are extremely good are likely playing at levels where you need more than pushbotting to win. Of course there are exceptions, like raptor 84 tabling the 22s or someone moving down to rebuild a br, but I don't think they'd consider the new buyin as their "level."

Poker and the gambling industry are built on denial and the player's ability to deceive himself into thinking he can beat the odds. Great players think they can overcome addictions to drugs and craps. Very good players think they can beat the toughest game in the room. Good players think that they don't need to manage their bankroll and should be playing higher. Average players think they can drop out of school and turn pro. Bad players think it's just a run of bad luck. Terrible players think it's all luck. While it's not surprising, it saddens me to see that 90%(!) of people here think they can pass up the 20 hands in which they're most likely to accumulate chips (with minimal risk) and still beat the game.

[wickss]

I used to start 4 tables and click sit out while I went outside and smoke.

I think the odds of getting a premium hand are 1 in 15 (correct me if Im wrong), so its not too uncommon for me to fold my first 20 hands anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
i open shove with QQ, KK, AA for lvls 1-2 when im 20+ tabling

[/ QUOTE ]

Would u mind telling your ROI, over how many sngs. I actually play early stage, and I think its a HUGE boost to my ROI (which is probably lower than yours). Maybe I dont understand how complex bubble play is cuz it seems pretty clear cut most of the time for me.

Brian

Did you steal one of Raptor's aliases?

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's not surprising, it saddens me to see that 90%(!) of people here think they can pass up the 20 hands in which they're most likely to accumulate chips (with minimal risk) and still beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you disagree that someone with a true ROI of 15% would still beat the game, which just means having a positive ROI, while skipping the first 20 hands? It's not like folding all those hands is so far from the usual play anyway.

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you disagree that someone with a true ROI of 15% would still beat the game, which just means having a positive ROI, while skipping the first 20 hands? It's not like folding all those hands is so far from the usual play anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be very close, and very dependant on which part of the game was their strongest.

My ROI is &gt;15 and I voted no, for whatever that's worth.

[Ogre]

i think i would be a winning player at the 100s because i rarely win chips in the first 2 levels anyway

[tom441lbk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, when im playing large numbers of tables, i start them as soon as i bust. i never stagger. i dont care what lvl the tournament is on. there are so many that everything staggers itself anyways.

as far as playing early stages in the 22s and such, my roi would probably go up 5-7% if i played the best early game possible. i open shove with QQ, KK, AA for lvls 1-2 when im 20+ tabling. just fyi. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


you're that donkey....

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, when im playing large numbers of tables, i start them as soon as i bust. i never stagger. i dont care what lvl the tournament is on. there are so many that everything staggers itself anyways.

as far as playing early stages in the 22s and such, my roi would probably go up 5-7% if i played the best early game possible. i open shove with QQ, KK, AA for lvls 1-2 when im 20+ tabling. just fyi. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


you're that donkey....

[/ QUOTE ]

yes im that donkey getting filthy rich off of people playing awful poker. holla

[Degen]

this is how i played the 33's and i beat them up pretty good

[Apathy]

I think it would be very very difficult for anyone to be a winning player at the 215s who sat out the first two levels. I think I could do it though and for the rigt price I'll try.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be very very difficult for anyone to be a winning player at the 215s who sat out the first two levels. I think I could do it though and for the rigt price I'll try.

[/ QUOTE ]

good luck peter. you will need it. holla

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Raptor wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
I think this idea of sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev. At the beginning of hand 1, the worst players and the best players all have the same number of chips. At the end of hand 20, there is a very good chance that a bad player has given away all of his chips, I want to give myself every chance to get those chips.
Even if you could be a winning player while sitting out level 1 and 2, why would you even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you consider it? to maximize the number of tables played. at the lower buyins, your skill advantage doesnt stem as much from early level play as much as it does from playing when the blinds get bigger. you can add more tables instead of playing hands early.. it makes your $/hr shoot way up. who cares about roi. $/hr is all that matters.

if you are playing a 109+, then obv sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev, and may make you a losing player. in fact, it more than likely would. in the 109s and 215s, you can pick up a lot of chips just being aggressive in the first couple levels. to not have that ability is very very bad. in the 22s and such, the first couple levels are useless to me. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

i kinda stagger. if i bust out at lvl1 or 2 (which is often - see below), i start a new game. but not after lvl2. i get too confused. but i guess i could also rearrange windows so that new games are clustered in one place. Thx for giving me the idea Raptor /images/graemlins/blush.gif

as for sitting out lvl1+2, it depends on your play style.

My 8-10th place finishes = ~20%. but my roi over the past 1000 SnGs is 15% at $55. (i play very aggressively, and take coin flips early.)

so my ITM would probably go up if i sat out lvl1+2, but i have no idea what effect it will do to my ROI. i will probably need to change my strategy since i rarely enter lvl4 with ~850 chips. it's usually 1500+ or &lt;600.

hm.. i might give it a try as an experiment since currently, i'm -.02bb at lvl2, and -.04bb at lvl3. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]

good luck peter. you will need it. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


This reminds me of something...First name basis.....RUHOROOHH
holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

good luck peter. you will need it. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


This reminds me of something...First name basis.....RUHOROOHH
holla

[/ QUOTE ]

well we no each other in rl so its cool. holla

[inyaface]

I know, I just remeber a post when someone else called him Peter and you made the first name basis comment so I had to give you some crap for it. But your lucky, you've only known him for a few years, I've known him since before he was pwning sng's /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that sitting out 2 levels and still winning over the long run would be significantly more difficult than most people here realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sitting out Levels 1 and 2 would cost me on average over 141 chips. I'd prolly barely be winning sitting out.