Moving up instead of sideways

[SmileyEH]

After playing almost 110 $30 SNG's on party with a 18% ROI (miserable I know, but I think two tabling had much to do with it) I've decided to switch to $50's. I would rather get better by moving up the limits single tabling or perhaps staggering starts by something like 25mins then my current $30 SNG setup.

Long term do you think this is +EV? My plan is to burn through the $50's hopefully beating the $100's single tabling within a month or two, then go back down to the $50's and multitable.

What do you all think of my attempt to find a balance between skill development and hourly rate? Should I just stick with multitabling until I "get it", instead of climbing up the limits?

-SmileyEH

[Bigwig]

This is a good question I've pondered myself.

I think multi-tabling at the lower rate helps lower your variance, but it does hurt your ROI.

I think the key difference is your strength of play. If you're a good system sort of player who sticks to their guns (ie, okay, in this position, I'm reraising with TT, in this position I'm calling the bet with this hand, etc.) then I think multi-tabling is not difficult.

But if you're a better feel player (ie, remembering betting patterns of your opponents and capitalizing on them), then single tabling at a higher level might be better.

Just my opinion.

[lorinda]

As a general rule, at any new level, it's best to take it easy until you can cope both emotionally and skill-wise (It's late, can't think of the right word) at the new level.

When you are comfy at your new level you can start to make more plays that are instinctive more quickly and begin the multi-tabling.

Just my opinion,

Lori

[rachelwxm]

In my opinion, single tabling would be very boring especially early stages, unless you are checking email or watching TV etc. Sure it will give you some edge early I think, like if you identify a moron at your table, try to get heads up with him and take his money away. But that has some risk too since he might catch some good cards.

Most of the draw back of multitabling comes from late stages, sometimes especially you are on the bubble two tables and I find out I am not aggressive steal enough while I am auto pilot and make bad pushs too.

Anyway, 50 level you have more chips, that might help. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Irieguy]

First off, 18% ROI isn't miserable. I'd be much, much more concerned about whether or not you are really winning at all after a mere 100 sngs than the fact that your ROI is x or y. If your ROI really is 18%, then you shoud be happy. Improving from +18% to + 26% is much easier than going from -5% to +3%

In my opinion, there is absolutely no drop at all in ROI when playing 1 vs. 2 tables. ROI will drop when multi-tabling... but that means playing 4-8 vs. 2-4 tables. If you play 1000 SNGs single tabling and your ROI is 18%, your ROI will be 18% playing 2 tables.

I think your plan is fine, but I would never move down a level unless I was trying to conserve bankroll. If you are winning, the only reason you should ever move down is risk of ruin.

Irieguy

[tomato head]

HI smileyeh, we played heads up last night I believe.Any who can beat the 30s consistently, can probably fair well enough in the fifties. Dont overlook the posts questioning whether 100 Sng is enough to tell you how good you are.It is not even close.

I would suggest continueing to play in the 30's to "supplement" your quest into the higher levels. Especially if you plan on playing in the 100's as well. The high buy-in can chew up a 30 sng bankroll pretty fast if your not carefull.

[Jason Strasser]

I think this is a poor idea.

First of all, multitabling does not increase variance, as far as I understand it. Unless the whole concentration factor comes into play, which I think is crap (for me there are very few decisions which require much pondering in a sng), you should play against worse competition. The 100 players are much better than the 30 players. If your ROI is x in the 30s, it will be lower at the 100s. Plus, 110 sngs is too damn small to actually determine your ROI.

If I were you, I'd learn how to multitable 4 sngs. I guess some people are not cut out for it, but I really find it relaxing. I know ZJ can do 8 at a time easily, and hold conversations on irc and over aim at the same time. I usually watch TV, listen to music, and play 4, and it is very relaxing--I don't even stagger them anymore.

I'd say your best plan would be to play more at the 30s, multitabling, then move up when you are ready to face better competition. Moving up to the 100s so you can have a roll to multi-table the 50s is a bad idea.

-Jason

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a poor idea.

First of all, multitabling does not increase variance, as far as I understand it. Unless the whole concentration factor comes into play, which I think is crap (for me there are very few decisions which require much pondering in a sng), you should play against worse competition. The 100 players are much better than the 30 players. If your ROI is x in the 30s, it will be lower at the 100s. Plus, 110 sngs is too damn small to actually determine your ROI.

If I were you, I'd learn how to multitable 4 sngs. I guess some people are not cut out for it, but I really find it relaxing. I know ZJ can do 8 at a time easily, and hold conversations on irc and over aim at the same time. I usually watch TV, listen to music, and play 4, and it is very relaxing--I don't even stagger them anymore.

I'd say your best plan would be to play more at the 30s, multitabling, then move up when you are ready to face better competition. Moving up to the 100s so you can have a roll to multi-table the 50s is a bad idea.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely with everything here.

Except I don't watch TV while I 4-table.

-Jman28

[MrFeelNothin]

I see little to no difference in my play 4tabling. After awhile you adjust to it, I think I may actually do worse single or 2tabling now as it just doesnt hold my concentration.