|
|
#11
07-22-2005, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
[ QUOTE ]
You are good enough to beat the higher levels, but then the smaller levels are -EV becasue you should be playing at a higher limit. [/ QUOTE ] EV is not a function of time. If you should win at a given level as the length of time played reaches infinity, you have +EV. The +EV may not be as high as the +EV at higher stakes, but it is still +EV, nonetheless. 
|
|
#14
07-23-2005, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad.
|
|
#15
07-23-2005, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
i think mini steps can be worth it...lately what i have been doing is buying directly into bunch of mini step 4's, and then just playing those...i think i would have + EV just buying into the top and playing mini 5 and i have the bankroll, but im not sure if i want that high variance (instead id just play 200 sngs) however, what i like about buying into mini 4 is 2 things 1 - it reduces the variance, because i never lose a ton (b/c payout structure and such), also, since i am + EV in mini 4's, i look at it as a cheap way to play mini 5's which i already expect to do well in...meaning i just get to play 400 buy in sngs for a discounted price...so i think it could well be worth it for someone to buy into mini 3 or 4 or such and work up from there. if there existed a 100+9 qualifier to play a 200+15 sitngo, i dont think i would do 200 sngs direct, i would just play tons of 100+9 qualifiers for that 200! i have more experimentation yet to do, but from a few weeks of just doing mini 4's, it has shown a nice profit [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#17
07-23-2005, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad. [/ QUOTE ] jesus, here's my strategy: 1) go, sit down at the table, and play better than your opponents. 2) profit, bitch. citanul
|
|
#18
07-23-2005, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Does anyone have any good mini step 5 (the 430) strat posts saved? I tried searching but the search on here is bad. [/ QUOTE ] jesus, here's my strategy: 1) go, sit down at the table, and play better than your opponents. 2) profit, bitch. citanul [/ QUOTE ] lol, nh. im going to have to try this one out. did you come up with this strat on your own... or is there a book i should read? bj
|
|
#20
07-24-2005, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Steps: Are they worth trying?
Steps are bad for the players.
The average rake paid if you make the final step is much higher than a direct buy-in. This is done by taking good share of the buy-in pool (not the fee) for the future fees. For example, in the 5+1 mini-steps, the pool is 50$ and it is used for 44$ future fund and 6$ future fees. So the total fee (or rake) paid by the players is easily 20%+, whereas if you bought a 400+30 directly, it would be 7.5%. To beat this house edge you need to be much stronger than the field, and even that it should be more profitable to join directly the highest level or two as you pay less rake in average and it takes less time to get there. Generally, it's a game where many players keep playing qualifiers, paying rake in the process and mostly don't get cash prize. So I wouldn't try it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
