Madness in the Rhythm

[Irieguy]

I have made it clear that I firmly believe that profitablility (ROI, that is) decreases as you move up in limits, and that this effect is probably pretty close to linearly proportionate. I explained my point of view here zero-sum game theory and equilibrium

But there seem to be a few artificial barriers in place that are affecting the differential difficulty between certain levels.

Relative to their buy-in, I think the $33's are the most difficult SNG limit to play.

I'm not saying that they are harder than the $55's... I'm just saying that they are harder than they should be, and I have a few ideas why that may be:

1. Where are the $44's?

Let's say you are a winning $11 player, and your plan is to move up when you have 30 buy-ins at the next level. So you wait until you have $660, and you move to the $22's. Then you wait until you have $990 and you move to the $33's. Now you have to wait until you have $1650, and it's getting harder and harder to move up. It would be easier to keep moving if there was a $44 SNG.

2. I want to quit my job and become a SNG pro.

How can somebody make their current salary, with low variance, playing SNGs? Well, Mr. J and Scuba Chuck have shown how you can do it at the $22's-$33's, and anybody doing it at the $22's is moving up to the $33's.

3. 1000 chips? No thanks.

There is an artificial barrier separating the "low limit" SNGs from the "high limit" SNGs, and it's the chip stack. Why wouldn't somebody want more chips, you ask? Because you have to be a better poker player to play with more chips, and it takes longer. Pros want to be able to play automatically and quickly. Especially young, inexperienced pros who have never checked a flop after raising preflop in their lives.

The cumulative effect of these and other factors is that there seems to be a "bunching" of good players at the $33 level. More than there should be, anyways. The good players should be passing through the $33's more freely, but they're not.

My "variance partner" and I have played 2000 $33 SNGs in 2005 and we've actually had to skip tables quite a few times to avoid too many pros. Table selection at the $33's when there are 70,000 players on-line?! I wouldn't have believed you if you told me you would even run into a familiar name once a night at the $33's 3 months ago.

But at the time, I really didn't even notice it. I just figured I was running bad for 2000 SNGs. Now that I've got 600 $55's and a few hundred $109's under my belt, it's pretty clear that there's a log jam at the $33's.

So, basically, the $33's are still harder than the $22's and easier than the $55's... but they are a lot closer to the $55's than the $22's, and the opposite should be true from a purely economic standpoint. The 3 best low-limit SNG players I know are all sub-20% ROI at the $33's over their last 1000 and that fact is more likely to be signal than noise.

Caveat pistrix, 22ers... and good luck $33 suckas. I'm off to the $109's and the water is nice. Now I only have to watch out for Raptor, and it seems like he's not even paying attention half the time. Daliman broke out of his 0-for-14,000 streak and is back at the $215's and Curtains is 8-tabling the $6's with his sister, so I don't forsee any trouble for a little while.

Irieguy

[johnnybeef]

the 11s are nice and warm irie....oh yeah i forgot, you have to eat don't you.

[yanicehand]

excellent, excellent post. saved me from posting so many questions i'd had.

[applejuicekid]

This makes me feel a lot better about my $33 results. Thank you, very good points.

[1C5]

This is very interesting and good info to know. Thanks for posting.

[SlowStroke]

I have experienced the same thing in the Poker Stars SNGs.

$30 is such an odd number (no corresponding US currency). For people who play just for fun $5 $10 $20 $50 and $100 are nice round comfortable numbers.

$30 is a stepping stone limit for serious players that many pleasure players simply skip over.

[swarm]

My question is if the play is becoming tougher at the 33's because the so called "fish" and "average joe" player are emulating the strategy that many two plus two players use. People copycat and adjust to what's working, not even the biggest fish are as dumb as we like to perceive them as being. Now i'm not saying they are not copying it perfectly. I don't know if it improves their games as they still make fatal flaws. However those adjustments they make, possibly make it that more difficult to win at those levels.

The reason I say this is I would imagine the majority of two plus two players play in the 20-50 region, especially the 33's. So it has become common place for everyone to push/fold starting at level 4 around the bubble with less than stellar hands. As more and more people see this done, more emulate it.

I've seen a lot of pushing of trash lately, especially in level 5. This I would deem as "copycatish" and as solid improvement to a players games and negative to a 2+2er trying to dominate a game.

On the adjustment side:

I have seen a higher propensity of people's willingness to call all ins even though they have a healthy stack with mediocre holdings such as j9off, q10, 78s, etc... I guess they have seen enough trash and are trying to call your bluff. Maybe they've done it a couple times and that "warm fuzzy feeling" they get from busting someone on a bluff with a mid hand makes them feel like a pro with "great instincts". I see less and less people allowing themselves to get blinded down. People are taking stands before they are in too deep. Some of this adjustment is positive others mostly negative to their personal game. However it's all negative to any 2+2ers game as it creates a crapshoot arena.

Lately I have been seeing a lot of people set traps in anticipation of aggressive bubble play. I've seen a lot of limping lately with AK + AQ even AJ 1010 - AA waiting for a push from a blind stealer. It seems many are willing to trap even if it is a coin flip situation with AJ. I'm not sure where to categorize this adjustment. However, i've had to become much more aware if not hesitant around limps and min-raises.

As the fish are adjusting their games, i'm adjusting mine. I think it is always somewhat advantageous to be a black sheep. Too many 2+2ers are becoming carbon copies of each other.

[Scuba Chuck]

You have expressed, very succinctly what my intuition has been telling me. I too have noticed that there is a large number of semi-experts at the $33s. And it's easy to see why. All of these winning players have built bankrolls ~ house money. "It's just 33 dollas." Which is the correct mantality to have to be a winning player.

I am very interested to see what the overlay in pokerprophecy brings. I was in a game yesterday, when the final 5 (including myself) were all 40+% winning players according to pokerprophecy. (One was Iwascastleman ~ who had an entourage of railbirds at the table)

Furthermore, I have come to the conslusion that the $33s might be a final resting spot for many of the lounge type players. For the very reason you indicate. More chips? Who needs 'em.

I have been thinking, and slowly gravitating (especially since Phil VS re-encouraged this thought) towards skipping the $55s.

But in the end Irie, I think that this is part of the ebb and flow of these games. It is my belief that right now one level might be softer than another, whereas another level might be in a logjam. It is the pros job to find the soft landing, and maximize his opportunity.

8 tabling $33s (25% ROI) = 4 tabling $109s (15% ROI) = $/hr

[Shanemex]

Would you say that you could earn a higher hourly rate playing the $22s than you could playing the $33s?

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been thinking, and slowly gravitating (especially since Phil VS re-encouraged this thought) towards skipping the $55s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just pointed Scuba to this post by Irie. I don't know what he should do, but it's not my money, so go for it! I also tried to talk Scuba into playing a $5000 headsup match on PokerStars (not against me).

In fact, I encourage all of you to leave the 33s.