How many SNG's did you play to get +ROI

As a casual player 3-6 tourney's a night I finally rolled past the 500 SNG mark. I am not going to bother with ITM's in such a small sample but did wonder how long did it take you to get positive ROI and what was the most significant thing you did to increase to positive (ie book, coach, SNGPT). Did you start cold or have significant poker background. 99% of my SNG's have been at the 55 and 109 level. Can I assume an accelarated learning curve? I already know my weakness and it has been the hardest hurdle to climb and thats the bubble (what a surprise). I also assume this was the major hurdle for most others as well.

[xLukex]

I dunno, I think the bubble is kind of easy for me.

It's the post flop play part that I suck at. I presume this is because I only started playing poker in March...

There is your super helpful response. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I gots nothin'.

[ QUOTE ]
As a casual player 3-6 tourney's a night I finally rolled past the 500 SNG mark. I am not going to bother with ITM's in such a small sample but did wonder how long did it take you to get positive ROI and what was the most significant thing you did to increase to positive (ie book, coach, SNGPT). Did you start cold or have significant poker background. 99% of my SNG's have been at the 55 and 109 level. Can I assume an accelarated learning curve? I already know my weakness and it has been the hardest hurdle to climb and thats the bubble (what a surprise). I also assume this was the major hurdle for most others as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I would've felt very depressed if I hadn't had a positive ROI by 500 SNG's, although I started at the 11's and just recently moved up to the 22's. I think if you have the bankroll to start at the 55's and 109's, you'll actually be better off in the long run. I'm sure that I'm cementing ideas in my head of ways to get chips from the 800 chip donkeys that will blow up in my face once I move up the ranks.

I don't care if one has the bankroll for the 55's or 109's I feel there is something to learn at these lower limits before you take your game to the higher level. It took me no time at all to earn a positive ROI because I started at these limits with bad players and got better by doing so and then I moved up. You can learn a lot from playing the 11's and certainly the 22's before you jump to the 55's. Eventually you will hit this wall where playing the 11's will no longer improve your game at all, but until this happens one should not move up without proving they can beat these lower levels for a near optimal roi. Many of the best poker players in the world got started playing small stakes poker and there is a misconception by many that they are better players than they are. So give 100-200 11 dollar tourneys a shot and see if there is anything to gain from them. With a positive roi move to the 20's and play 500 of them and then move up to the 33's or 55's with a better knowledge of the game.

[pooh74]

Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[ QUOTE ]
Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo

[ QUOTE ]
Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If your net worth is in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and you are serious about becoming a solid SNGer, AND you don't mind "paying" a few grand to shave some time off the learning cycle, jumping in at mid or higher limits can prove fruitful. You are exposed to a somewhat higher level of play learn a lot more by observing other players. Playing the $5+1s will actually make you stupider. I'm not saying it can't be profitable.... just that you aren't learning as much per hour.

If you are in your early twenties and have much more time than cash, sure, you save money by learning small stakes and progressing organically.

If you are in your 30s or 40s, playing lots of low limit SNGs is -$EV. If someone has the money, they might rather "pay" $20/hr for the first month to learn the $55s than "make" $4/hr at the $6s and not improve their game that much.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If your net worth is in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and you are serious about becoming a solid SNGer, AND you don't mind "paying" a few grand to shave some time off the learning cycle, jumping in at mid or higher limits can prove fruitful. You are exposed to a somewhat higher level of play learn a lot more by observing other players. Playing the $5+1s will actually make you stupider. I'm not saying it can't be profitable.... just that you aren't learning as much per hour.

If you are in your early twenties and have much more time than cash, sure, you save money by learning small stakes and progressing organically.

If you are in your 30s or 40s, playing lots of low limit SNGs is -$EV. If someone has the money, they might rather "pay" $20/hr for the first month to learn the $55s than "make" $4/hr at the $6s and not improve their game that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly...I am in my 30s and started out playing the 5s.

Note: I was not advocating playing the 5s per se.

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If your net worth is in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and you are serious about becoming a solid SNGer, AND you don't mind "paying" a few grand to shave some time off the learning cycle, jumping in at mid or higher limits can prove fruitful. You are exposed to a somewhat higher level of play learn a lot more by observing other players. Playing the $5+1s will actually make you stupider. I'm not saying it can't be profitable.... just that you aren't learning as much per hour.

If you are in your early twenties and have much more time than cash, sure, you save money by learning small stakes and progressing organically.

If you are in your 30s or 40s, playing lots of low limit SNGs is -$EV. If someone has the money, they might rather "pay" $20/hr for the first month to learn the $55s than "make" $4/hr at the $6s and not improve their game that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing the lower limits for a month or two is not going to somehow make you a worse player. You need to build a solid foundation somewhere.

Using your logic, some wealthy noob could jump into the 4k/8k at the Bellagio for the next 3-4 months and magically be transformed into a better player than 99% of the people here because he somehow learned that much more by playing at that level.

How about trying "different" instead of "silly".

If you wanted to start a small business, would you open up a lemonade stand and wait until you amassed $500 in profits before you "moved up" to a hog-dog stand etc. until you worked your way up to a car dealership?

If you wanted to learn tennis, would you start by "mastering" playing other nonplayers, or would you hire a tennis pro? Either way you get better, but one way is more expensive and faster.

[ QUOTE ]
Playing your first 500 SNGs at the 55s and 109s is probably one of the worst ideas I ever heard of. (unless I misread your post). Even if you have extensive poker background at limit or NL ring, you should never jump to its "equivalent" in another area of poker. i.e. playing 109 SNGs and then switching to 5-10 LHE without any limit ring background.

If you're having problems, this is the first place to look. Bubble play is where most of the cash in SNGs is made. Learning it at the 109s isnt worth the money invested when you could learn it much cheaper below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post.

Also, buy SnGPT if you haven't and quiz yourself on push/fold or call/fold situations for a while.

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
How about trying "different" instead of "silly".

If you wanted to start a small business, would you open up a lemonade stand and wait until you amassed $500 in profits before you "moved up" to a hog-dog stand etc. until you worked your way up to a car dealership?

If you wanted to learn tennis, would you start by "mastering" playing other nonplayers, or would you hire a tennis pro? Either way you get better, but one way is more expensive and faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiring a tennis coach is one thing. Paying money out of your own pocket for the privilege of playing on the tour starting next week in an attempt to accelerate your progress is another.

Q: "...how long did it take you to get positive ROI"
A: 1 game. (I had 5 firsts in my first 5 online Sit and Goes.)

Q: "...what was the most significant thing you did to increase...
A: I learned to disregard my first 5 online games...and...I learned that I needed to play tighter online than I was used to doing in live games.

Q: "Did you start cold or have significant poker background."
A: I had significant Poker background.

Q: "Can I assume an accelarated learning curve?"
A: Not necessarily true, but it might be true.

Q: "I already know my weakness and it has been the hardest hurdle to climb and thats the bubble (what a surprise). I also assume this was the major hurdle for most others as well."
A: My major hurdle is concentrating solely on poker while playing online. At times I also have to remind myself that there is such a thing as playing TOO tight, even online.

As an aside, I believe there is also such a thing as playing too loose in the bubble...and I also believe this will become more and more important as online players continue to become more and more knowledgeable. (I doubt if I will get much agreement here to that statement in the near future...but I strongly suspect we are quickly approaching the point where this thought is worth more than a casual dismissal.) I have already seen the benefits of trapping overaggressive "in the know" pushing bubble players. (Sometimes the rope-a-dope works in poker too!)

Have a great day!

[reecelights]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If your net worth is in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and you are serious about becoming a solid SNGer, AND you don't mind "paying" a few grand to shave some time off the learning cycle, jumping in at mid or higher limits can prove fruitful.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't seem correct. You don't learn to drive an Indy racecar at 220MPH by jumping itno an Indy racecar and flooring it with no experience or coaching. Bankroll should not be the deciding factor.

And, before you can be an Abstract Artist, you have to study traditional art so you know from what you are abstracting.

There's a reason some of the top cash games specialists like playing against Larry Flynt.

[1C5]

1.

Won my first one ever played.

[ QUOTE ]
How about trying "different" instead of "silly".

If you wanted to start a small business, would you open up a lemonade stand and wait until you amassed $500 in profits before you "moved up" to a hog-dog stand etc. until you worked your way up to a car dealership?

If you wanted to learn tennis, would you start by "mastering" playing other nonplayers, or would you hire a tennis pro? Either way you get better, but one way is more expensive and faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is there is something to learn from playing the 11's and 22's and that it is better to start from these and work up. You wouldn't start a 5 year old off in middle school because he seems smart and there is no reason to think that someone can just learn poker that quickly either.

Here is a better analogy. We have a man who wants to become the next heavyweight champion of the world. He's a big guy, tough and has held his own in a few bar room brawls. Would we rather he learns how to box and polish his skills off by beating up lesser opponents, or would we rather hope he figures it out quickly by fighting more experience fighters. There is no need to rush a fighter or a poker player to play above their level.

Conclusion: there is a very quick learning curve for poker, but everyone must go through it. Sure someone could become great by starting at the 55's but it would be much more frustrating and tough for that person and in my opinion would take a lot longer to do.

I guess it all depends on how much money vs. free time you have.

I certainly don't consider $55s as the equivalent of world tour tennis or the Indy 500. WSOP or 4-figure buyin MTTs would be a closer equivalent.

Everybody's different. Some people make $80k/yr and consider themselves rich. Others made millions in Silicon Valley and feel that they have fallen behind.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
How about trying "different" instead of "silly".

If you wanted to start a small business, would you open up a lemonade stand and wait until you amassed $500 in profits before you "moved up" to a hog-dog stand etc. until you worked your way up to a car dealership?

If you wanted to learn tennis, would you start by "mastering" playing other nonplayers, or would you hire a tennis pro? Either way you get better, but one way is more expensive and faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being kind using "silly". "Different" would've sounded silly. If I had to play devil's advocate to my post then your response is fine. However, it doesnt apply to 99% of us. The people who are worth millions are never going to be very interested in becoming good poker players for money making purposes. Millionaires don't comprise a large enough segment of the readers here to warrant catering posts to them.

For example, after every post we could add an addendum for the filthy rich: "Of course, if you're a millionaire, you could call this flop getting 1.5-1 because even if you dont hit your OESD it doesnt matter because Microsoft was up 4 points this week" etc...

Creative counter argument, but "kind of silly".

[durron597]

I started out +ROI and never looked back. There have been downswings but I've never been out of pocket.

Thanks all. I think that answered my question somewhat. As far as $$$ a lucky jackpot and a couple of significant MTT's bankrolled me for the SNG's. I already have the 500 SNG's (37%ITM -9% ROI) under my belt but wondered about jumping down. My biggest prob is playing 22's even at 20% ROI still only yields abt 40.00 a night. I guess that is much better than losing 50.00?? Also I do not like the 800 chip play? As I said earlier my preflop game is solid (not stellar). My post flop is as well due to extensive limit play etc. Both have room for improvement but my significant ROI growth would be most immediately assisted by bubble play. I think I will need to backward adjust for the 800 chip play. This seems to be more significant than some may realize for the particular style played in 55's and definitely in the 109's. At this point can I really improve bubble at these lower tables? Even at 55's I see much of the bubble play as a mere coinflips. Yes there is strategy used by solid bubble players but with the few tourney's I play a night I don't get to see a lot of them. I do occassionally spot what I call good bubble play at 55's and a lot more at 109's but I would think the lower limit bubble play is basically lotto and very little strategy. Yes maybe I would become instantly positive but I guess at this point (+500 SNG's at 55's, 109's) is lower limit SNG play simply pulling the band aide off slowly or could it really provide significant help?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I started out +ROI and never looked back. There have been downswings but I've never been out of pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true, he sent me a speadsheet of his playmoney $s and it never went red.

[IHateKeithSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
how long did it take you to get positive ROI

[/ QUOTE ]

I will post back and let you know.

[ QUOTE ]

and what was the most significant thing you did to increase to positive (ie book, coach, SNGPT)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my copy of sngpt is 'rigged'.

Nah, I think it was about 500 or so. I started out good, went to 0, and am now at about 6 or 8%. 1100 or so $11s, about 2500 $55s. When starting SNGs, I had been playing poker for years, seriously for about 3.

[ QUOTE ]

Millionaires don't comprise a large enough segment of the readers here to warrant catering posts to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I get it now, thanks. I've spent my career in silicon valley and it's silly to assume many others on this board have. I wasn't making a creative counter-arguement... I just live in a place where people who want to learn how to fly buy a plane first, so that they save money on lessons.

Thanks for taking the time to spell it out, most people wouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I started out +ROI and never looked back. There have been downswings but I've never been out of pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ditto.

I had like 300-400 buy-ins at the $22's when I started playing (that's why I didn't start lower), and I already was reading 2+2 so I started out as a winning player: tight early, push late. Even if you don't do it optimally, you can't go very wrong.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as $$$ a lucky jackpot and a couple of significant MTT's bankrolled me for the SNG's.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you do not have the bankroll to play the $55s if you are a losing player. Bankrolls are for winning players. Losing players have budgets.

I started as a winning player at the $5 SNGs on Ultimate Bet after working up a free $5 by playing penny-ante NL. It's easier to tell that you are a winning player when you play with a slower blind structure and maintain a ROI over 40%.

Than why do winning players insist on minimum 50 buy in bankroll? A bankroll is for downswings or negative runs?? But you are correct in that in my case it is a budget. I have not reached the limit set aside but want to ask the place where the remainder should be placed for the best returns (educationally and financially). I presumed most started off negative and at a limit that fell in their budget and they "grew" their game. I simply asked at what point did they see positive results. I somehow doubt everyone started positive? Even the best have growing pains in the SNG's. If the obvious choice is to start low than why didn't everyone start at 1.00 SNG's or lower?

[raptor517]

1. holla

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Than why do winning players insist on minimum 50 buy in bankroll? A bankroll is for downswings or negative runs?? But you are correct in that in my case it is a budget. I have not reached the limit set aside but want to ask the place where the remainder should be placed for the best returns (educationally and financially). I presumed most started off negative and at a limit that fell in their budget and they "grew" their game. I simply asked at what point did they see positive results. I somehow doubt everyone started positive? Even the best have growing pains in the SNG's. If the obvious choice is to start low than why didn't everyone start at 1.00 SNG's or lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what your personal goals are. What do you expect/want to get out of playing poker? This is why Bazul's post wasn't completely wrong, because for those he is speaking of, it holds merit. For me, putting 50 dollars into a poker account was just for fun and wanting to learn. I didnt know about this place, I read "TOP" and a couple of other things but really chalked it up to "if I get 20 hours entertainment out of this, then I am ahead"

Well, I lost it...but 50 bucks wasnt a big deal to me. So I tried 100 the next time and told myself to stay disciplined. I hovered around 100 for MONTHS!!! playing 5s and ring stud h/l. If your goal is to improve and not lose a ton of money, then set aside an amount that is a good BR for x level and go from there. "x" level should be an efficient starting point however, (not x/50 the $ you have). You CAN learn playing the 11s or 22s...plus, that learning is reinforced by winning more often so losing interest won't be as big a concern.

[ QUOTE ]
Than why do winning players insist on minimum 50 buy in bankroll? A bankroll is for downswings or negative runs?? But you are correct in that in my case it is a budget. I have not reached the limit set aside but want to ask the place where the remainder should be placed for the best returns (educationally and financially). I presumed most started off negative and at a limit that fell in their budget and they "grew" their game. I simply asked at what point did they see positive results. I somehow doubt everyone started positive? Even the best have growing pains in the SNG's. If the obvious choice is to start low than why didn't everyone start at 1.00 SNG's or lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

I started out on an insane heater and didn't know it. That fueled my desire to get better, which led me to Harrington on Holdem, which lead me to 2+2.

I think that a lot of players that start and end up being negative ROI for a while just end up quitting. 2+2ers aren't a random selection of party poker players... they are people who for the most part have experienced some success and want to get even better. Or friends of Yugo's.

To answer your OP, I'd suggest start by reading Harrington on Holdem I and II. Work through all the problems, try to guess the correct play before you read on. I've read them both at least 5 or 6 times and constantly reread the problems. It doesn't translate perfectly into play at PP SnGs, but it does let you know what you should think about and watch.

After that, I bought PokerTracker and started replaying my tournaments. I kept a log of what happened that busted me out of each tournament. I noticed I was pushing TP into better hands a lot, and quit doing that as much. I also started playing small pairs more strongly HU.

After that, I started posting hands on 2+2 where I was confused, whether or not I won the hand. Read lots of other hand postings too.

Buy SNGPT and go over the bubble plays in your HH with it and till you have a firm understanding of what's +EV, -EV and marginal.

By this point you should have a solid foundation and might consider hiring a poker coach if you have the money. Paying strong players to review your HHs can really help a lot.

This is kinda the path I've taken, hopefully something in what I shared might help you save a little time or money.

[pooh74]

Or friends of Yugo's.


ROFL...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bankrolls are for winning players. Losing players have budgets.

[/ QUOTE ]Than why do winning players insist on minimum 50 buy in bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did it sound like I was saying that winning players do not need bankrolls? I can play safely with only 50 buy-ins (in fact, much less, since my ROI is higher than that of players who play on Party). You would not be safe with 500 buy-ins if you are not a winning player.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started out +ROI and never looked back. There have been downswings but I've never been out of pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true, he sent me a speadsheet of his playmoney $s and it never went red.

[/ QUOTE ]

damn right