Daliman, ZeeJustin, Jason Strasser and... [Archive]

Desdia72

06-12-2004, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what sort of games they play, but I play the 100/9 and 200/15 SNG's on party pretty regularly and find that they are always as easy as the 30/3. I really think it's more about how much money you want to play for than skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

so your answer pretty much centers on the fact that you have the bankroll to play $100 and $200 SNGs on a regular basis rather than you worked your way up over time from lower limit ones to your present level?

stupidsucker

06-12-2004, 03:57 PM

I am not any of those people, nor am I a big limit SnG player.

I do know from experiance that playing within your bankroll is quit possibly the most important thing to consider. I also would recomend that no one just start playing $100 or $200 SnGs without first proving yourself at the $20-$30 level. At least play 1000 $50 SnGs before trying the big ones.

If you already KNOW you are a winning player at SnG's (dont know how unless you have played enough), then I guess do what you want. No matter what.... never play with what you can't aford to lose.

Good luck

eastbay

06-12-2004, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what sort of games they play, but I play the 100/9 and 200/15 SNG's on party pretty regularly and find that they are always as easy as the 30/3. I really think it's more about how much money you want to play for than skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that. IMO the $30's and the $100's do not play the same at all. If I was in a bad mood I might say something like "if you can't tell the difference between those games you don't belong in the $100s." But I'm not, so I won't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

eastbay

Desdia72

06-12-2004, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what sort of games they play, but I play the 100/9 and 200/15 SNG's on party pretty regularly and find that they are always as easy as the 30/3. I really think it's more about how much money you want to play for than skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that. IMO the $30's and the $100's do not play the same at all. If I was in a bad mood I might say something like "if you can't tell the difference between those games you don't belong in the $100s." But I'm not, so I won't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

so are you saying the skill level at the $30s on Party is less than the $100s on Party?

Dylan Wade

06-12-2004, 04:48 PM

I think that's a load of crap. Perhaps if you're talking about the 100 game any old time of the day 24/7, but I'm obviously adding some game selection here, (ie. friday and saturday nights). There is a difference between the various limits in cash games, but in tournies, esp single table tournies, that difference is negligible. That is, it has a negligible effect on your winrate. You don't see as many idiotic plays in the early rounds of a 100 game, but that's because they're scared, not because they play better.

eastbay

06-12-2004, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's a load of crap. Perhaps if you're talking about the 100 game any old time of the day 24/7, but I'm obviously adding some game selection here, (ie. friday and saturday nights). There is a difference between the various limits in cash games, but in tournies, esp single table tournies, that difference is negligible. That is, it has a negligible effect on your winrate. You don't see as many idiotic plays in the early rounds of a 100 game, but that's because they're scared, not because they play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. I have statistics to convince myself otherwise, and I've seen numerous other posted examples of statistics which also provide evidence otherwise.

50% ROI in the 30 games has been achieved by numerous players, myself included. Find me one player who gets that in the $200 games. I've never seen such a claim over any significant sample, ever.

I'd love to learn otherwise, but I'm pretty certain you're wrong.

eastbay

eastbay

06-12-2004, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

so are you saying the skill level at the $30s on Party is less than the $100s on Party?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

eastbay

La Brujita

06-12-2004, 05:00 PM

I don't have statistical proof but I have played a lot at both and I think it is basically fact that the $100's are more difficult to beat.

Regards

Tosh

06-12-2004, 05:19 PM

Just thought I'd post this for fun. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t30 (9 handed)

saw flop|saw showdown

CO (DylanW) (t1310)
Button (t1790)
SB (t1465)
Hero (t1995)
UTG (t1210)
UTG+1 (t1105)
MP1 (t1655)
MP2 (t1355)
MP3 (t1380)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls t30, 4 folds, CO (DylanW) raises to t270, 2 folds, Hero raises to t1350, UTG folds, CO (DylanW) calls t1040 (All-In).

Flop: (t2705) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players, 1 all-in)

Turn: (t2705) 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: (t2705) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: t2705
Main Pot: t2665 (t2665), between DylanW and Hero. > Pot won by Hero (t2665).
Pot 2: t40 (t40), returned to Hero.

Results in white below: 
Hero shows As Kh (one pair, sixes).
DylanW shows Kc Qd (one pair, sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins t2705.

Tosh

06-12-2004, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't see as many idiotic plays in the early rounds of a 100 game, but that's because they're scared, not because they play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if that is true, and I'm not convinced it is, by playing scared they are automatically playing tighter and more correct.

Dylan Wade

06-12-2004, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd post this for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha..
lame.

I'm sure someone anyone on 2+2 could come up with better examples of me playing like crap than that. I get really arrogant in those games, my goal is not to win, but to deliver suckouts to 2+2'ers.

Tosh

06-12-2004, 07:23 PM

Fair enough, sorry if I annoyed you, just kidding.

Daliman

06-13-2004, 11:54 PM

Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

eastbay

06-13-2004, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

Desdia72

06-14-2004, 07:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

well, if he already was a more than capable SNG or MTT player, i don't consider it getting 'lucky'. i'm pretty sure he played well enough to cash in or win them.

Kurn, son of Mogh

06-14-2004, 09:40 AM

I think you miss EastBay's point. He wasn't saying that Daliman wasn't a skilled player. The point is that regardless of how skilled you are, losing 4 straight SNG buy-ins is a common occurance. Daliman had the good fortune to not have that happen at the beginning of his run. Truly good players understand that a bankroll of 4 buy-ins is a recipe for going broke before you can get off the ground.

mackthefork

06-14-2004, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
well, if he already was a more than capable SNG or MTT player, i don't consider it getting 'lucky'. i'm pretty sure he played well enough to cash in or win them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man i really hope you are fishing, else your naivity is scary to me.

99 3 handed all in on the short stack is good play, but it will still lose often enough, failing to money 4 5 or 6 even 10 times in a row will happen as a normal sequence of events. Listen to eastbay.

Regards ML

Daliman

06-14-2004, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, however i was closer to 1600 when i started 4 tabling. the inference is still the same however. I have dropped as much as 4200 before stabilizing at times, which seems lower than most that 4 table.

Tosh

06-14-2004, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

well, if he already was a more than capable SNG or MTT player, i don't consider it getting 'lucky'. i'm pretty sure he played well enough to cash in or win them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, Daliman is a good player but he did get lucky not to go broke. This strategy is fine if you don't mind going broke but as eastbay said, it isn't recommended.

Desdia72

06-14-2004, 09:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, however i was closer to 1600 when i started 4 tabling. the inference is still the same however. I have dropped as much as 4200 before stabilizing at times, which seems lower than most that 4 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, were you already an experienced SNG or MTT player before you started playing the bigger buy-in SNGs? how many of those $100s and $200s do you play everyday?

ZeeJustin

06-15-2004, 12:04 AM

I grinded my way up from ring games. After 10/20 6 max, and 15/30 6 max, the 200 SNG's were my next step. Generally, I pick a new game every month.

For those that care, here is my timeline.
Paradise .50/1, buy in for $100, profit a little bit, get bored move up to 1/2. Lose, go back to .50/1, win. Lose at 2/4. Repeat, never going bust.
Paradise, bought in for an additional $500. Play 5/10, lose $300. Realize that I'm not even close to properly bankrolled, and quit.
Pokerroom 1/2. Buyin for 100. Win up to 200. Lose it all.

Then I cashed a little from paradise, bought into party for $250 (this was last July).
.50 / 1 -> 1/2 6 max (insert 2nd place for $2k in $20+2 MTT here) -> 5/10 6 max
Then I played for a couple months on stars, mostly 36+3 satellites into the 200+15's, and .50/1 and 1/2 NL
Then I went back to party. 10/20 6 max -> 15/30 6 max, and then $200+15 sng's were my next step.

Edit: This is all from memory, so I may be missing a step or two. I also entered a decent amount of multi's, but my only good finish before I started playing SNG's was in the $20 MTT listed above.

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 10:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I grinded my way up from ring games. After 10/20 6 max, and 15/30 6 max, the 200 SNG's were my next step. Generally, I pick a new game every month.

For those that care, here is my timeline.
Paradise .50/1, buy in for $100, profit a little bit, get bored move up to 1/2. Lose, go back to .50/1, win. Lose at 2/4. Repeat, never going bust.
Paradise, bought in for an additional $500. Play 5/10, lose $300. Realize that I'm not even close to properly bankrolled, and quit.
Pokerroom 1/2. Buyin for 100. Win up to 200. Lose it all.

Then I cashed a little from paradise, bought into party for $250 (this was last July).
.50 / 1 -> 1/2 6 max (insert 2nd place for $2k in $20+2 MTT here) -> 5/10 6 max
Then I played for a couple months on stars, mostly 36+3 satellites into the 200+15's, and .50/1 and 1/2 NL
Then I went back to party. 10/20 6 max -> 15/30 6 max, and then $200+15 sng's were my next step.

Edit: This is all from memory, so I may be missing a step or two. I also entered a decent amount of multi's, but my only good finish before I started playing SNG's was in the $20 MTT listed above.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you basically financed your way into the $200 + $15s with money you won from multi-tabling ring games? do you think that your experiences in the 10/20 and 15/30 ring games prepared you well for the $200 + $15 SNGs?

Jason Strasser

06-15-2004, 10:41 AM

Never saw this post. Here is my little timeline:

Cash into party $100. Play 25 NL tables. Lose money. Cash into party, join 2+2, get fourth in $20 multi, wih $1100. Start playing 2-3x 30 dollar sngs, 1/2 shorthanded limit. Move up to 50 dollar sngs. Win $17,400 in super monday after qualifying via sng. Play $100 SNG. Moved to $200 sng.

Just moved money to pokerstars to get used to playing there and to qualify for WCOOP.

I turn 20 in december, but im still older than ZeeJustin. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Prickly Pete

06-15-2004, 11:00 AM

I guess mine is a little more conventional than some of the others. Started at Party $30 SNGs and played 1000. Moved to $50 and played 500. Moved to $100 and played 500. Moved to $200.

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess mine is a little more conventional than some of the others. Started at Party $30 SNGs and played 1000. Moved to $50 and played 500. Moved to $100 and played 500. Moved to $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can see that yours was a gradual move up in limits like a ring game moving from 10/20 to 15/30, from 20/40 to 30/60 and what not. this will mostly be my approach to moving up in SNG limits. i still have not had huge successes in the big MTTs so much of my bankroll growth comes from playing $5 and $6 SNGs. i'm committed to the long run and improving my game. i'll get there eventually.

ZeeJustin

06-15-2004, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
do you think that your experiences in the 10/20 and 15/30 ring games prepared you well for the $200 + $15 SNGs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in order to be good at SNG's, you really have to be a versatile player. Having a background that includes full table NL ring and shorthanded limit, as well as having some solid MTT experience is a perfect resume for someone trying to do well at SNG's. In fact, I was probably better prepared than I would have been simply from grinding my way up the SNG ladder.

Daliman

06-15-2004, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, however i was closer to 1600 when i started 4 tabling. the inference is still the same however. I have dropped as much as 4200 before stabilizing at times, which seems lower than most that 4 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, were you already an experienced SNG or MTT player before you started playing the bigger buy-in SNGs? how many of those $100s and $200s do you play everyday?

[/ QUOTE ]

I average about 300-400 a month, but was primarily a ring limit player with decent NL MTT experience. I used to hate SNG's. ANd yes, I'm more than a bit of a plunger, so i definitely don't recommend my way. Standard i think is having at least25 buyins if you are a good player.

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you think that your experiences in the 10/20 and 15/30 ring games prepared you well for the $200 + $15 SNGs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in order to be good at SNG's, you really have to be a versatile player. Having a background that includes full table NL ring and shorthanded limit, as well as having some solid MTT experience is a perfect resume for someone trying to do well at SNG's. In fact, I was probably better prepared than I would have been simply from grinding my way up the SNG ladder.

[/ QUOTE ]

so would you suggest i play more limit ring games? i would say one of the reasons i don't play more limit is because of bankroll issues. plus, NL was the first game i ever learned when i got into poker and i caught on to SNGs rather quickly and experienced some success early. i feel that, naturally, i was able to adapt better to NL than i was to limit. instead of ring games, do you suggest that i add some Limit SNGs into the mix?

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for me, i played about 5 100+9's, found them beatable, got up to about $800 in my account, played a few $200+15's, found the same, and immediately started playing 4 at a time as much as was humanly possible, never once getting broke.

Your results my vary...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try this at home, folks... this is generally considered a rather extreme overplaying of bankroll by most.

I don't care how beatable they are, you're going to lose 4 buy-ins in a row on a regular basis. Daliman got lucky to not go broke while getting off the ground here.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, however i was closer to 1600 when i started 4 tabling. the inference is still the same however. I have dropped as much as 4200 before stabilizing at times, which seems lower than most that 4 table.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, were you already an experienced SNG or MTT player before you started playing the bigger buy-in SNGs? how many of those $100s and $200s do you play everyday?

[/ QUOTE ]

I average about 300-400 a month, but was primarily a ring limit player with decent NL MTT experience. I used to hate SNG's. ANd yes, I'm more than a bit of a plunger, so i definitely don't recommend my way. Standard i think is having at least25 buyins if you are a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

300-400 a month? DAMN!! so do you think the best route that i can do toward becoming a solid and profitable SNG player
is to grind it out at the low limits? maybe judge my longterm success by evaluating it when i reach 500-1000 $5 SNGs? i'm open to just about anything within reason to become the best SNG player i can. i've been toying with the idea of purchasing Wilson's Tournament Texas Holdem and Acespades Tournament software, but i have'nt been able to get a definitive answer on which is better from the players who have them. i'm looking to purchase Tom McEvoy and Brad Daughtery's CHAMPIONSHIP SATELLITE STRATEGY because i think it would benefit me well with SNG play. any other suggestions you think could be valuable is appreciated.

Pitcher

06-15-2004, 05:56 PM

Hi Guys,

I wanted to chime in on a couple of these. I played $50 PP Sit N Go's for 11 months before moving up. I had tremendous stats (high ITM% and high ROI). The last 4 months I played I averaged over 5K a month playing them (1.5 at a time). I left most of the $$ in there and started playing $200 with a 15K BR. Best move I ever made.

Note that during my time doing this I have won $5300 in one day and lost 2600+ another. I have had one 10 tourney losing streak and one 8 tourney losing streak in the last two months. Because of the big BR, I don't worry, just keep plugging away. Now I generally play 2-3 at a time. Still have a hard time after 3 (tried it once, just too hard for me to keep track of). Regardless, I am doing very well.

That said, what if you went into this with 4-6 buyins and lost 6 straight. It is easy to do, even playing very well. Come in with a solid bankroll (as Eastbay said) and you will have alot more success IMO.

Pitcher

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Guys,

I wanted to chime in on a couple of these. I played $50 PP Sit N Go's for 11 months before moving up. I had tremendous stats (high ITM% and high ROI). The last 4 months I played I averaged over 5K a month playing them (1.5 at a time). I left most of the $$ in there and started playing $200 with a 15K BR. Best move I ever made.

Note that during my time doing this I have won $5300 in one day and lost 2600+ another. I have had one 10 tourney losing streak and one 8 tourney losing streak in the last two months. Because of the big BR, I don't worry, just keep plugging away. Now I generally play 2-3 at a time. Still have a hard time after 3 (tried it once, just too hard for me to keep track of). Regardless, I am doing very well.

That said, what if you went into this with 4-6 buyins and lost 6 straight. It is easy to do, even playing very well. Come in with a solid bankroll (as Eastbay said) and you will have alot more success IMO.

Pitcher

[/ QUOTE ]

hey, i'm nowhere near the level of playing $200 SNGs, much less the $50s. i'm a low limit grinder.

cferejohn

06-15-2004, 07:42 PM

I'll chime in. I don't play SnGs all that often. Maybe a couple dozen a month, with lots of MTTs and NL cash games. This question has kind of become "where did your bankroll come from" anyway.

Started as a limit player on party. 2/4, 3/6, occasional stabs at 5/10. I think I originally cashed in $100, lost it, then cashed in $200, found 2+2, read theory of poker, and managed to get it up to ~$700-800 and then tried my hand at a $10 limit sit-n-go. Won it. Played another. Won it. Played another. Won it. Played another. 2nd place. Hey, this game is easy! :P

After that I played mostly $10 and $20 limit sit n gos for a while, and occasionally took shots at $20-$30 limit multis (at this point NL poker, even tournaments, frightened and confused me; this was maybe about 5 years ago).

Anyway, after a couple low money finishes, I won a $20 or $30 MTT for ~$1500. I started reading the tournament board here more carefully, especially the NL stuff. I bought Sklansky's then just released tournament book, and I re-read Theory of Poker with NL tournaments in mind. I heard that Stars was the best tournament site around, so I moved some money over there and started playing there. I didn't have much luck there at first; I kept having to transfer money over from party. At one point, I was down to my last $50 or so on pokerstars (I had over $2000 on party though) and I entered a late night $50 PL tournament and placed 4th, good for a couple hundred dollars. The next day I played a $30 multi and won it for ~$2000.

Since then, I've essentially never looked back. I've won 3 $100 tournaments with relatively small fields (~120) (good for ~$3500 each), and also made the top 4 (including a couple wins) in several $30-$50 tournaments. Somewhere in here, I turned some kind of corner where limit tournaments started boring the bejeezus out of me, so I pretty much stopped playing them.

Umm. I know that wasn't really the original question, but there is where my bankroll came from in a really large untidy, patched together nutshell...

Desdia72

06-15-2004, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in. I don't play SnGs all that often. Maybe a couple dozen a month, with lots of MTTs and NL cash games. This question has kind of become "where did your bankroll come from" anyway.

Started as a limit player on party. 2/4, 3/6, occasional stabs at 5/10. I think I originally cashed in $100, lost it, then cashed in $200, found 2+2, read theory of poker, and managed to get it up to ~$700-800 and then tried my hand at a $10 limit sit-n-go. Won it. Played another. Won it. Played another. Won it. Played another. 2nd place. Hey, this game is easy! :P

After that I played mostly $10 and $20 limit sit n gos for a while, and occasionally took shots at $20-$30 limit multis (at this point NL poker, even tournaments, frightened and confused me; this was maybe about 5 years ago).

Anyway, after a couple low money finishes, I won a $20 or $30 MTT for ~$1500. I started reading the tournament board here more carefully, especially the NL stuff. I bought Sklansky's then just released tournament book, and I re-read Theory of Poker with NL tournaments in mind. I heard that Stars was the best tournament site around, so I moved some money over there and started playing there. I didn't have much luck there at first; I kept having to transfer money over from party. At one point, I was down to my last $50 or so on pokerstars (I had over $2000 on party though) and I entered a late night $50 PL tournament and placed 4th, good for a couple hundred dollars. The next day I played a $30 multi and won it for ~$2000.

Since then, I've essentially never looked back. I've won 3 $100 tournaments with relatively small fields (~120) (good for ~$3500 each), and also made the top 4 (including a couple wins) in several $30-$50 tournaments. Somewhere in here, I turned some kind of corner where limit tournaments started boring the bejeezus out of me, so I pretty much stopped playing them.

Umm. I know that wasn't really the original question, but there is where my bankroll came from in a really large untidy, patched together nutshell...

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, it was'nt really a BANKROLL question, per se. it had more to do with WHAT ROUTE the big buy-in SNG players took to get to playing the $100s and $200s almost exclusively. it's none of my business what others made or are currently making, BUT the somewhat openness is much appreciated.

eastbay

06-15-2004, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
other successful bigger limit SNG players, how did you all advance to the level you're playing at now? was it a natural progression over time or was it a more quicker ascension due to early and profitable success?

[/ QUOTE ]

I started playing $25 buy-in NL ring games, moved to the $50 buy-in NL ring games, then tried the $5 SnG thing.

I quickly moved to the $10+1s when I realized the rake sucked at $5. I quickly moved to the $30s over a period of a few weeks. I waffled between the $30s and the $50s for a few months, finally settling into the $50s and started getting solid results in the $50s. Recently I have been waffling between the $100s and the $50s (when I take a beating in the $100s, sometimes I drop back down to regroup.)

Hopefully I have broken the $100s barrier for good this time.

Pretty standard stuff, I think.

eastbay

Desdia72

06-16-2004, 02:18 PM

did any of you guys have any set route that you took toward becoming profitable upper-limit SNG players.

*example: software programs like Wilson's TTH or Tournament Texas Holdem, specific NL Holdem books, etc.

Prickly Pete

06-16-2004, 03:02 PM

Hmmmmm, Pitcher's a regular at the $200s. Who might you be?

Desdia72

06-16-2004, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm, Pitcher's a regular at the $200s. Who might you be?

[/ QUOTE ]

you asking me?

Prickly Pete

06-16-2004, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmmm, Pitcher's a regular at the $200s. Who might you be?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you asking me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh, no. I was asking Pitcher. You know, the guy I replied to.

But of course I'll pay a handsome reward for any info on this mystery man. And if you could tell me what kind of pitcher he is, that would help. Baseball, water holder, guy trying to make a sale, guy setting up a tent???? Help a brother out.