Question about $$ won

[xGoreDudex]

These questions are directed at anybody who play in a lot of sit & go's per day.

According to the FAQ, 13% is a number for a good player at the $55 game. My question is, since I'm esstentially brand new to the world of Single Table Tourneys in general, is that number typically the normal for a "winning" player at that level, or do you have be Justin Bonomo or Greg Raymer to expect win-rates such as listed in the FAQ? for each level.

On a side note, is 50 sit&g's a day about avg for a full-time Sit&Go player on here?

Thanks for any responeses.

[Simplistic]

i believe those win-rates are rates a good player should strive to achieve. i.e. not extraordinary but the sign of a good player.

50SNGs is good if you're a part-time poker player. if you're a professional you'd probably likely want to log more/day.

it also depends how many tables you play.

i'm currently 4-tabling SNGs and would be happy to hit 30 SNGs a day.

[runner4life7]

13% at the 55s is going to be a better than average winning player but you dont have to be as good as the top posters here or anything. With the amount of tables a day like the other poster said it all depends on the number you play at once. I 8 table and 100/day is very draining and ive only done it twice.

So if you are considering playing a lot, look at where you are after a month of playing and see if you still like it.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
These questions are directed at anybody who play in a lot of sit & go's per day.

According to the FAQ, 13% is a number for a good player at the $55 game. My question is, since I'm esstentially brand new to the world of Single Table Tourneys in general, is that number typically the normal for a "winning" player at that level, or do you have be Justin Bonomo or Greg Raymer to expect win-rates such as listed in the FAQ? for each level.

On a side note, is 50 sit&g's a day about avg for a full-time Sit&Go player on here?

Thanks for any responeses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a somewhat controversial topic because of the nature of the beast. Even though variance in SNGs is essentially fixed (by the structure) and small (compared to other forms of poker), it is still large enough to create enormous ranges between seemingly huge data sets.

Still, I think that in the fall of 2005, those ROI values are a good reference point and they are accurate for what a good player can expect.

To answer your question, no, you do not have to be as good as ZeeJ or Fossilman to achieve a 13% ROI at the $55's. But you do have to understand the ICM, the implications of Eastbay's work on hand values against pushers, MJ's blind stealing theorem, and correct early stage and ITM play to beat the $55's at that kind of clip. You can learn all of that here, or you can figure it out on your own without even knowing that the information has already been worked out and written about.

I will say this, too: very few players are as good as they think they are, and fewer still do better than they think they should over the course of a year or more.

I've posted threads in the past that pose the question "what makes you think you are so good?" The majority of short term winners believe that their results prove that they are good, even though they can't really explain what makes them a poker marvel. God-given talent, they suppose.

Players that beat this game consistently, over the course of many years work very hard at it. There's only ever been one Stu Ungar. Greg Raymer is the perfect counterpoint, and a great example for all of us to follow. Nobody in the poker community, and certainly nobody in the online poker community, worked so hard and thought so much about this game over the past 10 years. It paid off.

The reason for this little soliloquy is that if you read between the lines of your OP, what you are really asking is "is it easy to beat SNGs?" The answer is: not nearly as easy as it seems.

Irieguy

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
what you are really asking is "is it easy to beat SNGs?" The answer is: not nearly as easy as it seems.


[/ QUOTE ]

This should really be pasted into the FAQ.

[valenzuela]

What does "working hard on your game" means. Ive improved by basically posting and playing. What should I do to improve?? There must be a point where I wont get better by posting and playing....

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
What does "working hard on your game" means. Ive improved by basically posting and playing. What should I do to improve?? There must be a point where I wont get better by posting and playing....

[/ QUOTE ]
Bones pointed out to me that "the real hand discussions don't take place on the forum." The most valuable discussions I've had are over AIM, where I'll send someone a hand and we'll talk about it. Also when you have the same few people review many of your tournaments and discuss a wide array of concepts, they quickly get a feel for how you play and are then able to give you pretty tailored advice.

So I think the best thing you can do is find a couple players on here, and ask them if they'd be willing to talk about hands with you online. If you catch them at the right time you might get an hour long lecture that will blow your mind.

[Mr_J]

"50SNGs is good if you're a part-time poker player. if you're a professional you'd probably likely want to log more/day. "

50 is very high for a part timer. 50 is still a pretty decent effort for a pro, and I'd bet many of them play less, and few would play much more.

[Little Lew]

[ QUOTE ]
Eastbay's work on hand values against pushers, MJ's blind stealing theorem, and correct early stage and ITM play

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give a date range for any of these valuable threads that will simplify a search?

Thanks in advance.

LL