Level Increases: Bankroll vs. ROI

[Scuba Chuck]

This was a question I asked in another thread that I thought was worth discussing (at least it has benefit to yours truly).

I am questioning the logic behind the consistent comments that you should move up a level based purely on bankroll, especially if you're earning it, vs any other measure. So, for arguments sake, why shouldn't the 'indicator' be more a combination of bankroll and ROI before moving up?

What is a good ROI (per level) that one should shoot for before considering to move up a buyin level? For example a 40%+ ROI on the $10+1s is an obvious sign to move up.

And furthermore, what is the minimum ROI for someone to accept as an obvious sign to not move up per buyin level? For example, if you're achieving a 10% ROI at the $20+2 level, and have reached a $30+3 bankroll, I wouldn't feel confident to move to the 33s.

I ask this because it is usually 'suggested' that you move up a level based on bankroll. I moved into the $30+3 bankroll level in just 33 SNGs after reaching my $20+2 bankroll level. My ROI thus far has been very high. Although the results thus far give me confidence, I am considering to see another 100-170 SNGs before I move up a level. (I lie, I will probably toss in a $33 game here and there)

Comments welcome

[ColdestCall]

I'll preface this comment by admitting that I have never played at either the 22 or 33 level, having skipped straight to the 55s. That being said.....

I find it very hard to believe that there is a significant skill difference between the 22s and 33s. You're crushing the 22s. Move up and dont look back.

[Chief911]

Heres my thoughts on bankroll and moving up:

1. I think bankroll management/mismanagement is the second most important factor to success of a poker player, and its barely behind actual poker skill.

2. If you have the BR to move up, and have enough self control to move back down if you lose below a set level, then I think you can move up if your ROI shows that you'll survive at that next level. For example if you had an ROI of 20% at the $50 level, even if your ROI was 12% at the $100 level, it would be worth the move.

3. Method of moving up. I like the gradual method. Start mixing in one game (If you play multi-boards at a time), then two, then all of them. Slowly accustome yourself to the changes.

4. If you find yourself playing meekly, go back down, or do your best to adjust being knowledgeable that meek play will not win.

I would say the most important thing by far is BR management. Because in SNG's, a move up to quickly without the BR for it can lead to a quick demise, and starting all over again.

Nick

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a question I asked in another thread that I thought was worth discussing (at least it has benefit to yours truly).

I am questioning the logic behind the consistent comments that you should move up a level based purely on bankroll, especially if you're earning it, vs any other measure. So, for arguments sake, why shouldn't the 'indicator' be more a combination of bankroll and ROI before moving up?

What is a good ROI (per level) that one should shoot for before considering to move up a buyin level? For example a 40%+ ROI on the $10+1s is an obvious sign to move up.

And furthermore, what is the minimum ROI for someone to accept as an obvious sign to not move up per buyin level? For example, if you're achieving a 10% ROI at the $20+2 level, and have reached a $30+3 bankroll, I wouldn't feel confident to move to the 33s.

I ask this because it is usually 'suggested' that you move up a level based on bankroll. I moved into the $30+3 bankroll level in just 33 SNGs after reaching my $20+2 bankroll level. My ROI thus far has been very high. Although the results thus far give me confidence, I am considering to see another 100-170 SNGs before I move up a level. (I lie, I will probably toss in a $33 game here and there)

Comments welcome

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a great point that is little mentioned here compared with BR depth. I would base my moving up in buy-in level MORE so on ROI than on my BR....of course ROR is always a consideration and its not to say that BR is therefore not a consideration.

For me, starting out at the 5s on stars (and never tracking anything, just bascially not trying to go broke) I moved up at first based on the fact that I turned 50 bucks into 200. Now, I have decided to merge ROI and BR by always being 40 buyins deep and having a ROI of at least 40% before taking the plunge. Of course, going from say $100 to $200 having a ROI of 40% to move up is unreasonable and ROI reqs should shift slightly downward as stakes increase... however, not to the point of not making it worth the increase in stakes. (ie roi goes down from 40 to 19% with an increase from 100 to 200 level buyin).

I went from 16s on stars to 25s with a roi at 16s of 43% (over 200 tracked). Iveplayed only 43 at the 27s (turbos obviously) with a ROI of 47% so who's to say?

One last consideration is Multitabling vs. stake increase and fine tuning profit by seeing which for you is most efficient in hourly rate...this can be very scientific but on an indvidual basis...IOW i dont think there is any right or wrong way to go about except to try a lot of combinations and see which makes the most loot per hour.

sorry for this longwinded response...

pooh

[captZEEbo1]

I JUST made a post about this two days ago...well let me copy/paste what I just said:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things people don't seem to realize is, once they HIT the 30x buyin mark, that doesn't mean they SHOULD be playing at that level. The 30x buyin mark basically just means, if you already ARE a skilled player at that level, then your risk of going broke is VERY small with the 30x buyin. Right now, I play the 30s and have accumulated a bankroll up from playing enough 10s, 20s, and 30s, that I technically have the required "30x buyin" for the 215s to play there, but it just isn't smart. I simply wouldn't be a winning player at that level, because I'm not used to playing tougher competition and I'm simply not skilled enough to handle the comptetion. One thing you have to remember is, the bankroll requirements for both limit (300x bb) and sngs ONLY apply if you are a winning player. There is NO bankroll max a losing player can have to not risk going broke.

The best thing to do is to play at each level until you're very comfortable with the limit. Once you are comfortable with it, and have enough bankroll, test out your skills at the next level of buyin. Don't just jump into the next level. My advice is to try the next level once or twice, and then continue earning at the lower buyin. Maybe for every 5 games you play at your limit, try one at the next limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
(original thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;sb=5&o= )

[The Yugoslavian]

You can always use a sliding scale. For instance (using roughly 40xbuyin guideline to be safe):

$0-$450 (10/1 SNGs)
$450-$900 (20/2 SNGs)
$1300-$2200 (50/5 SNGs)
$4360-$8500 (100/9 SNGs)
$8600+ (200/15 SNGs)

You just play SNGs based purely on where your bankroll is on the above scale. If you have a bad run, you end up moving down, if you have a good run, you end up moving up.

Of course, if you feel like your ROI at the next level is so low you aren't making a better $/hr return, then you should probably move down. For instance, I'd guess many players will get to the higher levels and just find the games too tough to beat and stick with the next highest level no matter how large his/her bankroll got.

If you have the discipline to just play based on your bankroll range then following the above guideline should work fine. I'd imagine for a +EV player at the lower levels this guide has almost no ROR (although if it does I hope someone tells me! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).

Yugoslav

Note: high limit 6-handed ring games seem to be a bad idea for many healthy SNG bankrolls, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Mr_J]

"Note: high limit 6-handed ring games seem to be a bad idea for many healthy SNG bankrolls,"

I'm guessing you know from experience [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
"Note: high limit 6-handed ring games seem to be a bad idea for many healthy SNG bankrolls,"

I'm guessing you know from experience [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard many people say that the real money lies in the ring games. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. I've had huge swings in ring games, but seem to be able to grind out a small to moderate profit from the low level SNGs.

If the money really is in the ring games, then why do people play SNGs professionally?

Any comments appreciated.
ss

[Mr_J]

I'd say there's plenty to be made in both, just many people find one suits them better than the other.

[El Maximo]

I don't think ring games are more profitable than SnG's. I think its a personal preference. I was a solid low limit ring game player making 2BB-5BB/100 depending on the level. I make slightly more playing SnGs. I think it might be easier to multi-table ring games. I switched to SnGs just because limit is soooo boring. I started to dread playing. I always enjoy playing SnGs. So for me, its more a factor of profit and fun. Even if I could make more at ring games I would still play SnGs.