Questions for the pro's on improving SNG returns

[GreggyB]

Hey everyone,

I posted this a couple days back but apparently didn't give it an appealing enough topic as it only got 36 views... we'll try again and see what happens.

I'm trying to get a little more serious and consistent in my online play. It seemed that I was doing well in SNGs only to piss away my winnings in ring games. Last week I started a quest to really beef up my game, play with more consistency and with some solid goals in mind.

I started with some $30 in my account, so I'm playing the $5 + .50 SnGs on UB. Since I've been keeping track I am 38/74 placing in the money: 22 firsts, 12 seconds and 4 thirds.

This week I've started playing two at a time. While I enjoy it more, I feel my booking suffers significantly. I actually wrote my own program (ultimatebook.net) to act as a poor man's in-game pokertracker. This seemed to help when I first started... but when I play two tables at a time I feel I'm playing entirely the cards with little regard for the personalities.

I would like to make somewhere in the neighborhood of $100-$200 per month playing in these SnGs. I'm thinking of 2-3 sets of two simultaneous SNGs a night. Here are some of the questions I'd love help in answering:

What's a realistic expectation for win/loss ratio at the $5 level? $10?
What kind of bank roll should I have to play the 10 + 1 tables? What if I want to play two at a time?
Should I even be at UB? Are the games better elsewhere?
What are your thoughts on playing multi-tables?

I'd love to hear your personal experience: what kind of consistent income have you guys made playing SNGs? What strategy for attacking SNGs gives you your best hourly rate?



That's alot of questions for a first time poster... thank you all for your time.

Greg

[byronkincaid]

but as I'm trying to stay awake for tonights game by writing silly posts:

[ QUOTE ]
What's a realistic expectation for win/loss ratio at the $5 level? $10?

[/ QUOTE ]

30-50% ROI

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of bank roll should I have to play the 10 + 1 tables? What if I want to play two at a time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably $220 upwards depending on how good you are

[ QUOTE ]
Should I even be at UB? Are the games better elsewhere?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never played at UB. Party has the worst players. Stars has goodish players but a much better tourney structure.

[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts on playing multi-tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I personaly can't handle multi tableing and I have tryed so I'm just sticking to concentrating on $55s with a $400 roll /images/graemlins/smile.gif Other people have better results playing multiple $11s or $22s.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

ok. honesty...

your post leads me to believe you are inexperienced, too much so to play two SNGs at one time. It's more fun, but you cannot expect to spead yourself thin at this point in your poker playing career and see premium results.

In addition, $30 playing $5+$0.50 SNGs gets you five shots at winning enough to continue. Even for the top SNG players, that is not enough, not even close. Given your experience level, I'd suggest 20 buy ins as the minimum bankroll. I base that on extensive experience, not some mathematical equation. Still, others will no doubt support me here, 5 buy ins is just not nearly enough. I realize you may have more than that now, but if so, it's lucky for you. I am talking theoreticals here.

UB's SNGs are OK, but the competition there is not the easiest. Party is the easiest, but their SNG structures SUCK IMO. I prefer enough chips to have some play in the game, and at this time stars offers the most chips / slowest escalation of stakes. UB is OK tho.

The win/loss rate should not change much, if at all, from $5 to $10 SNGs. The same bunch of morons play both.

I don't keep track of my wins / losses from online poker, so someone else can probably help you more there. I make enough to do just fine, but in all honesty, I can't wait get back to playing part time pro live, and working in some other capacity than pro card player.

al

[CharlieFox]

Maybe I'm just on a streak with SnGs right now, but $100-200 a month sounds like an easily achievable goal with just playing one $5+1 SnG a night. Like you said, your booking suffers when you play more than one table at a time (as does mine), so maybe you're not ready for that yet. Better to play one table and win than two tables and place in one.

I would recommend PartyPoker for SnGs. The only caveat is the low starting chip count... I feel really constrained starting out with only 800 chips, especially coming from PokerRoom, where you start off with 1500. The strategy of playing conservatively and straightforwardly at the start and then including some trickery as the herd starts to thin and I have a bigger stack has taken me from $50 to about $110 in two or three weeks... it'd be closer to $150+ if I hadn't tried jumping to the $10+1s a little early, and playing a $22-buy-in WPT Super Satellite on a lark.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm just on a streak with SnGs right now, but $100-200 a month sounds like an easily achievable goal with just playing one $5+1 SnG a night

[/ QUOTE ]

You are on a streak. And if you do play the $5+1, Party is doing pretty nice money on your streak, too.

[HC5831]

These topics have been covered quite a bit on this forum. Do a seach for threads on this subject to find them. I post my results for my 1st 300 tourneys going from the $10 +1 to the $30+3 tables. Here's the link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=557752&page=43&view=e xpanded&sb=5&o=&fpart=

I'll be posting the results for my next 200 tourneys in the next week or so. I concider myself a good SnG player at the $30+3 level. I play 2 tournies at once, 6-8 a day, 150 a month. I had success at Paradise, but have moved to Party for the last 6 weeks. Mr results are similar, but my earning per hour has increased because of the shorter SnG lengths.

Don't play 2 tables at once until you have a couple hundred tournies under your belt. I didn't play 2 at once until I had played 300 tournies. Even with two, sometimes I miss a hand here or there because I am focused on the other table. I'm sure this hurts my game a little, but the earnings/hr from playing 2 tables at once makes up for it. Some people play 3-5 tables at once. I don't know how they do it. I've been playing poker seriously now for 4 years and I can only handle two.

Hope this helps,
HC

[CharlieFox]

[ QUOTE ]
You are on a streak. And if you do play the $5+1, Party is doing pretty nice money on your streak, too.

[/ QUOTE ] You mean because they take $1 each time? As long as I keep doing pretty nice money, I don't mind if they do the same.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean because they take $1 each time? As long as I keep doing pretty nice money, I don't mind if they do the same

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're doing nice money, you should move up to the 10+1 as soon as you can, which is probably yesterday. You are paying *twice* the rake, on the 5+1. This is a lot, no matter how good you are doing. No reason to stay there, when the level of field is practically the same. If you had to play there a few games, to get a feel and make a start, that's fine, but keeping playing there does not make sense.

BTW, on stars (and UB I think) you can find 5+0.5.

[CharlieFox]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're doing nice money, you should move up to the 10+1 as soon as you can, which is probably yesterday. You are paying *twice* the rake, on the 5+1. This is a lot, no matter how good you are doing. No reason to stay there, when the level of field is practically the same. If you had to play there a few games, to get a feel and make a start, that's fine, but keeping playing there does not make sense.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, I'm still pretty new to playing online, so I think I'm just going to stay at 5+1 for now. Once I build my bankroll up some more, I'm going to feel a lot more comfortable at 10+1. I tried playing my same strategy at the 10+1, but I think because each tourney cost $11 instead of $6, it made me lean a little more towards the tight-weak side. (I know, it's only $5, but my only gambling experience before playing online poker was playing the $1 or $2 blackjack tables... I'm a microstakes player. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Profit]

[ QUOTE ]
The win/loss rate should not change much, if at all, from $5 to $10 SNGs. The same bunch of morons play both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. I agree with the prior poster that you should move to 10+1's as soon as you feel comfortable with the SNG format, especially if you are paying that extra .50 a SNG (5+1 vs 10+1)

BTW, my suggestion is hardly that of a PRO

[DarkKnight]

You asked what return you should expect so I imagine that is important to you. You need to see the math for yourself so you can convince yourself not to be afraid of the $10+1.

A decent ROI for a level with 10% Entry Fee is 30%
At $5+0.50 (not available at Party) you would earn
30% x %5.50 = $1.65 per tournament
the extra $0.50 party get come out from there
giving you an earn of $1.15 per.
Convert back to ROI = $1.15 / $6 = 19%

So you are losing almost 11% ROI by paying the extra rake.

Put another way you are giving up 30+% of your earn for the luxury of staying at $5+1.

If you are only a 15% ROI player then you are giving up over 60% of your earn.

Get out of $5+1 ASAP. This will do more for your game than any other single change.

[Prickly Pete]

DarkKnight is absolutely right. Put another way, a slightly better than average player might get 1 first, 1 second and 1 third in every 9 tourneys. At the 5+1, they'd lose $4. At the 10+1, they'd make $1.

How can you afford not to play the 10+1s?

And like some others have mentioned, if the bankroll won't allow have the the 5s, go to Stars or UB and save on the rake.

[MisterKing]

[ QUOTE ]
The win/loss rate should not change much, if at all, from $5 to $10 SNGs. The same bunch of morons play both...
al

[/ QUOTE ]

I've wondered about this. While the argument for increased ROI at the 10+1 vs 5+1 is unassailable, I think something else does come into play, in at least some limited situations.

Suppose for a moment that a player (me) has just been KILLING the 5+1's... placing in the money well over 60% of the time, and taking 1st more than 33% of the times in the money. While I am sacrificing some ROI by sticking at 5+1 to do this, my EV is through the damn roof based on previous success -- possibly (probably?) overcoming the loss of ROI to stay at the lower buy-in.

Now, I don't have a whole lot of experience at 10+1... played a few and done just fine, but certainly not the same rate of success. So the question is this: what should I expect to face as far as increased skill at 10+1 that I haven't been seeing at 5+1, were I to move up? That has to be part of the discussion, in light of the advice you folks are giving. Saying the ROI is better probably isn't enough to justify it. I'm playing on Paradise, btw - though I do play on Party occasionally as well (hate the interface).

As a second question, I wonder what kind of bankroll I ought to keep if I do make this change? I usually keep 14-20 buy-ins on hand in the bank at the 5+1 level (cash out whenever the bankroll doubles), and I expect I'd need to keep more $ in there when making the jump.

Thanks! /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[wayabvpar]

At PP, I don't remember any appreciable difference in the skill level of the average opponent (been a few months since I played there. however). There is a slight decrease in total retards at the $10 level at Stars (not as many "all in with Q4o" maniacs), but they are still reasonably soft (except that 2 table one on Thursday nights...that is brutal /images/graemlins/grin.gif ).

I do see a significant difference between the $10 and $20 at Stars, with the $30 not too much different than the $20.

[Profit]

as far as the 10+1's to the 5+.50's on pokerstars. Yes every once in a while i do run into a tourney where the competition is quite a bit better than your typical 5 or $10 SNG. However overall, i find that the quality of competetion isn't any better at 10+1 than it is at 5+.50. Quite frankly i can't even comment at one thing that sticks out in my mind as far as difficulty change. Once you go beyone 10+1 however, you will see some change.

It's the smallest jump in SNG's in regard to the buyin, so that is to be expected. Most ppl don't really think twice about the extra $5, hence i feel the competetion isn't any better. Once you get to the 20's and beyond, people will be a little more hesitant to put that cash up.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
what should I expect to face as far as increased skill at 10+1 that I haven't been seeing at 5+1

[/ QUOTE ]

nothing.

The big difference is that you're paying 20% vig at $5+$1 and only 10% at $10+$1.

Just quit cashing out for a while and you'll be fine bankroll wise. I prefer at least 20 buy-ins but more would be better. You may just be running good with 60% in the money, but then at that level the competition is so bad....

al

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'd agree with the earlier posts regarding having at least 20 buy-ins and avoiding $5+1 events.

As for skill levels, I think the competition is generally weak at Party at least upto the $30+3 level. I doubt that there is much difference at all between 5+1 and 10+1.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far with regard to 2 table play is that it can get a bit hectic if you are short-handed on both tables at the same time. Depending on your experience level you might want to consider staggering the starts to try to avoid this.

Another thing to consider might be focusing on Limit SnG's at Party in preference to No-Limit. Although most players here prefer No-Limit games, my ROI is actually higher in Limit games at Party than No-Limit. I find it helps to counter the low starting chip number as you get more play per event (although the overall time taken is about the same) and also gives you more opportunity to play drawing hands when the opportunity arises. However, the key advantage is that it will also help you improve your ring game play, which you say currently pisses away your SnG winnings.

This will probably contradict what many others feel but I'd suggest giving the limit games a try - for an inexperienced player I'd suggest that they would be more forgiving and, at Party at least, are still populated by many clueless players who will happily donate chips to you with all manner of hands.

Sheriff

[benkath1]

Man, I am in the EXCACT same boat. I win SNG and piss it away at ring games. I have only played SNGs for the last week, but am in the money 6 out of 12. I know that isn't very many tourneys, but are those good numbers, or am I just lucky? Two first, one second, three thirds. 5+.5 at stars.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

are those good numbers, or am I just lucky?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and yes.

I haven't played many one-table SNGs so I can't say for sure but 50% in the money seems about the best that could ever be obtained in the long run, I would imagine. A very likely explanation for your results is that you're both playing well and running good. Long may it continue! But don't be discouraged by downswings should they come along: we all have them.

Guy.

[benkath1]

Thanks for the advice. I just hit 2 more last night /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Kind of seems easy, but I am probably running good like you said.
Ben

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, I am in the EXCACT same boat. I win SNG and piss it away at ring games. I have only played SNGs for the last week, but am in the money 6 out of 12. I know that isn't very many tourneys, but are those good numbers, or am I just lucky? Two first, one second, three thirds. 5+.5 at stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample of 12 means NOTHING. Play 150 and then see where you are. I've won 11/12 and lost 12/12, playing exactly the same way.

eastbay

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Kind of seems easy, but I am probably running good like you said.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it does seem easy at times. Running good is like that! And in SNGs, running good doesn't mean much: just that your opponents fold at the right times, and don't suck out on you too much.

I've mentioned this before and been called a liar, but it's true so I'll repeat it. When I first started playing SNGs on Paradise in 2001, I won eleven in a row. That's eleven first places on the bounce. I thought I was invincible.

Turned out I wasn't. I've also managed 13 in a row without placing.

Guy.

[CharlieFox]

Just wanted to thank all the people who tried to convince me to hop up to the $10+1s. I played a couple more recently and have done well, and that has helped me loosen up a little bit instead of worrying about the money. I think it was just nerves from jumping to a higher entry fee, plus the fact that I lost the first one I entered. I know that you can't get a smaller sample size than one, but it was still discouraging. Anyways, thanks again for helping this 2+2 newbie out.