How would a top pro do playing SNG's?

[rjc199]

Lets say a top class pro decided that he was going to go on vacation and play $5 STARS SNG's for like two weeks.

Said pro is already competent in online play because he first learned to play there.

So what do you think would be the ROI% of said pro at the various SNG limits? Basically I'm looking for a theoretical max ROI%.

[silversurfer]

I'm nowhere near a top pro(playing for 5-6 years, 7 months seriously), but I would say he would do very well (ROI wise). I play stars 5$-10$ SnG's (currently building a bankroll) exclusively and I slaughter the 5$ tables. I don't calculate the ROI(yet), but 100-130$ a day is easy. (MT'ing 2-3 tables)
Makes for some nice pocket change.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm nowhere near a top pro(playing for 5-6 years, 7 months seriously), but I would say he would do very well (ROI wise). I play stars 5$-10$ SnG's (currently building a bankroll) exclusively and I slaughter the 5$ tables. I don't calculate the ROI(yet), but 100-130$ a day is easy. (MT'ing 2-3 tables)
Makes for some nice pocket change.

[/ QUOTE ]

level SNGs, then you need to give me your secret so i can write a book on it. heck, i was told $50 profit a day was at the $5 level was pushing it with the crazies that play in those games.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say a top class pro decided that he was going to go on vacation and play $5 STARS SNG's for like two weeks.

Said pro is already competent in online play because he first learned to play there.

So what do you think would be the ROI% of said pro at the various SNG limits? Basically I'm looking for a theoretical max ROI%.

[/ QUOTE ]

you get for your thread from some of 2+2's SNG elite. i started a thread about a month or so ago asking kind of the same question, but directed at the $50 to $200 level SNG players. i asked could they make $55 to $60 a day playing at the $5 + $.50s on PS and $5 + $1s on Party? the answers ranged from "i could" to "why would they, it would'nt be +EV". the point of my thread was to gauge whether their superior skill and poker savvy come overcome the luck-oriented and crazy play at the low levels for a consistent profit day in and day out. i don't think my thread accomplished that.

i, personally, would love to see pros like Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, Daniel Negreanu, Doyle Brunson, Gus Hansen, etc.
play the lower levels SNGs on Pokerstars for an extended period experiment to see how they would do. for that matter, i would like to see good online players like Josh Arieh (razorbax), Scott Fischman (emptyseat88), Daniel Larsson (Looptroop), John D' Agostino (jdags21), Pete Giordano (TheBeat), everybody on the PS leaderboard, and the higher limit SNG players on 2+2 play them to. i feel like you get better by playing better competition, but oftentimes your bankroll prevents you from doing that, especially if you're a lower limit player without alot of experience.

[Irieguy]

"...the point of my thread was to gauge whether their superior skill and poker savvy come overcome the luck-oriented and crazy play at the low levels for a consistent profit day in and day out..."

This is a very common misconception. The "crazier," more "luck-oriented" your opponents are, the more you will be able to exploit their deficiencies and increase your In-The-Money (ITM) percentage. The lower your oppoennts' ITM, the higher your ITM%. The higher your ITM%, the lower your variance. That's just zero-sum game theory.

So, the craziest, goofiest, most frustrating games (ie, the $5 or $10 SNGs) will give you the most stable, predictable results. If you are pressing all of your skills to their limit, trying to gain marginal edges on decent opponents at the high limits, then a run of bad cards will wreak havoc on your variance and you could endure a 100-200 tournamnent run as a loser. That could never happen at the $5 or $10 level if you are even a modestly solid player with above-average short-handed skills.

Irieguy

[Irieguy]

oops

[Eder]

Desdia...play the 2+2 tourneys...many extremely good players play those to show us how its done...

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Desdia...play the 2+2 tourneys...many extremely good players play those to show us how its done...

[/ QUOTE ]

an occasional tourney? that's not the same thing as what i'm talking about.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
"...the point of my thread was to gauge whether their superior skill and poker savvy come overcome the luck-oriented and crazy play at the low levels for a consistent profit day in and day out..."

This is a very common misconception. The "crazier," more "luck-oriented" your opponents are, the more you will be able to exploit their deficiencies and increase your In-The-Money (ITM) percentage. The lower your oppoennts' ITM, the higher your ITM%. The higher your ITM%, the lower your variance. That's just zero-sum game theory.

So, the craziest, goofiest, most frustrating games (ie, the $5 or $10 SNGs) will give you the most stable, predictable results. If you are pressing all of your skills to their limit, trying to gain marginal edges on decent opponents at the high limits, then a run of bad cards will wreak havoc on your variance and you could endure a 100-200 tournamnent run as a loser. That could never happen at the $5 or $10 level if you are even a modestly solid player with above-average short-handed skills.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't quite understand what you're saying? are you saying pros and the higher level SNG players would accomplish that goal? was the issue with zero-sum game theory?

[Irieguy]

Yes, expert SNG players could beat the low limits soundly and with a much lower variance than they encounter at the higher levels. It's just not worth the hourly rate.

I was responding to the very common assertion (made even by some "pros" when commenting on this year's WSOP) that crazy, loose, super-bad players make the game somehow harder to beat consistently. That is just not at all true.

Irieguy