#1
|
|||
|
|||
for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
to play anything besides $200 + $15 SNGs if you're a profitable player? let's say you profit $500 a day, which does'nt even equal 3 buy-ins at that level (and probably is'nt inconceivable to do), you're still doing good if you do this 5Xs a week (5 day work week, MON-FRI). at $2500 a week, 52 weeks a year, you're clearing $130,000 a year without having to really focus on playing any other types of poker, i.e. MMTs or ring games.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
For me, this would be WAY more than I could make playing the hours I play. First of all, if I'm 4 tabling, my ROI will probably be around 18-22% for these 200s. So I'd make on average ~$150 each round. If each round takes an hour and change, we're looking at 5-6 hours per day. And considering I usually NEVER play for blocks like that, it would be easy to see how mental fatigue, etc, would set it and my ROI would decrease.
Only a few of the top SNG players could pull something like this off IMO. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
Desdia,
I don't understand the need for this post in light of your recent post on "how much can you make playing sngs?" Yes, if you have such a win rate, and you are satisfied with that amount of money, and incapable of getting bored, etc, that is the amount of money that you make in a year. Well done. Many of the players, even those who want to just make money, seek to improve more than just one segment of their game. For instance, if you knew you could make 130k a year playing 200s, you probably would look for larger games after a significant sample at the 200s. These games I don't know if they are out there right now, I personally play the 20s at the moment. I guess I just don't understand why/what's the point/etc of your post. It seems mostly to be a "wow, if you can do X, you can make $Y," kind of post. citanul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
[ QUOTE ]
For me, this would be WAY more than I could make playing the hours I play. First of all, if I'm 4 tabling, my ROI will probably be around 18-22% for these 200s. So I'd make on average ~$150 each round. If each round takes an hour and change, we're looking at 5-6 hours per day. And considering I usually NEVER play for blocks like that, it would be easy to see how mental fatigue, etc, would set it and my ROI would decrease. Only a few of the top SNG players could pull something like this off IMO. [/ QUOTE ] take your $150 a round for example. if you play 3 rounds of 4 tables each, which only takes 3 hours out of your day, and profit $150 per round over your buy-ins, that's still $450 a day. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
[ QUOTE ]
Desdia, I don't understand the need for this post in light of your recent post on "how much can you make playing sngs?" Yes, if you have such a win rate, and you are satisfied with that amount of money, and incapable of getting bored, etc, that is the amount of money that you make in a year. Well done. Many of the players, even those who want to just make money, seek to improve more than just one segment of their game. For instance, if you knew you could make 130k a year playing 200s, you probably would look for larger games after a significant sample at the 200s. These games I don't know if they are out there right now, I personally play the 20s at the moment. I guess I just don't understand why/what's the point/etc of your post. It seems mostly to be a "wow, if you can do X, you can make $Y," kind of post. citanul [/ QUOTE ] this is not a post about HOW MUCH YOU CAN MAKE or WOW, YOU CAN MAKE SUCH N SUCH $, it more has to do with, "Would there be a need to focus on playing other money games of poker if you were profitable at this level?" because the buy-in is so much, you could make a lot of money being a good player at this level, and not really have to focus on anything else. example: if your answer is yes, then this certain individual (if he/she plays ring games) may choose to play $30-$60 or $100-$200 when their $200 + $15 SNG profits get them to a high enough point in their bankroll. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
I think the biggest factor would be boredom. You would definately want to have MTT or Ring game skills for those days when you just don't want to do SnG's.
I did a Poll a while back and was suprised at the low number of people that play many many SnGs per day. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
I agree with what Bradley is saying, it gets boring to me sticking with one type of game, and therefore I can't maintain my focus and play my A game all the time because of my boredom.
In April, I was just playing 1 table tourneys and drilling them, but I got tired of them and decided to focus on Multi's. I had never really focused on them and had only two final tables in my life. In May I ended up getting 4 final tables, with a chopped 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th for some good cash. But lately I haven't had the time for multi's, so I have just played cash games this month. I'm starting to get the itch for tourney's again though so we'll see what happens. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
At top level 4 tabling, given that you can handle the stress and swings, and are good enough, these numbers are pretty realistic, and mostly what I did for 4 months. Now I add 2 NL cash games to my 4 tables, with mixed results thus far, but I see little dropoff in my SNG play.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
It takes you over an hour for a single round? I think I average about 6 per hour playing 4 at once (rough estimate).
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: for the $200 + $15 SNG players, is there a need...
but let's say you average $150 profit per round, and play three of them (an hour apiece)...$450 a day could be made easely at this level. that's close to $500 a day. $450 a day at only 3 hours is very good. where's the boredom in that?
|
|
|