Which is more profitable 33s or 55s

[runner4life7]

Obviously it would appear that if you are a solid player that the 55s are more profitable and before I say anything else I do not have large enough sample sizes for any conclusions.

I just moved up to the 50s not too long ago and have played almost 300 at pretty much break even after rakeback which is not good. And I have ran very hot at the 30s before this over only 130 games. My point is that the players at the 33s seem to be sooo much worse than the 55s so I am going to go back to the 33s where I think the $/hr is greater for me at least. My question is that are the 33s more profitable than the 55s for winners at the 33s and then also for most winners at the 55s?

[Lori]

Without answering your question, remember that 18% in the $33s is the same as 10.8% in the $55s.

They need to be A LOT better.

This does however seem to be a question that is dodged a lot by everyone (including me) so perhaps for many players there is not much in it either way.
(My reason for dodging is simply because of tiny samples. If you asked me to guess I'd say the $55s are MUCH more profitable)

Of course the $55s are a platform to the bigger games and are also not quite the same game due to the extra chips.

Lori

[tigerite]

So far I'm doing a lot better at the $55s than I did at the $33s, but it's surely just sample size (just around 200) and way too early to tell.

However I did used to play them exclusively 7 months ago so I've not had to adjust much, only to take the new stuff I've learnt and apply it to some of the ideas and plays I used to have, etc.

[Messy_Jesse]

I think I played 1500 33's, and I've played a ton more 55s- my ROI actually went up at the 55s. I thought the 33s were much tougher FOR THE BUYIN than the 55s are; the 55s ARE harder, but I think that they are also more profitable, as the money gap between the two is larger than the skill gap.

[axeshigh]

55s are more profitable for me, but they might not be for every one. I've seen you at the 55 tables and well, you didn't seem at ease.

[The4Aces]

well you also have to consider if you are playing the $55s you can eventually move up to the $109s and $215s.

[sledghammer]

1000 instead of 800 chips is a significant difference. Way more post flop play in the early levels. I have a higher rate than i did at the 33s (small sample size) and i think that makes a big difference. The 800 chips tend to limit good players in my opinion.

[MegaBet]

55s...easily.

[runner4life7]

i appreciate the honesty, i think ive been making a lot of pushes with 4-6 people left that are either border line or just plain wrong and am open for criticism.

[jgunnip]

Did the results of Zen and Irieguy's little bet ever get published?

[Shilly]

Time should also be considered.

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
Did the results of Zen and Irieguy's little bet ever get published?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irie won more at 500 $50's than Zen did at 500 $30's

but it was very close

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
Time should also be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is overrated I think, most of the $55s I've played haven't lasted more than 50 mins max, bar maybe one or two out of over 200. So you're talking maybe 5mins more per SNG.

Also, remember that 33s take less time to complete than the 55s, I assume that wasnt included in your calculations?

EDIT: didnt see above post