SnGs vs. Ring Games (or...why I like SnGs)

[triplc]

I feel like this is a no-brainer, and I might cross post this in small stakes (hopefully won't ruffle any feathers there), but if one can play equally winning poker in both formats (a big if), aren't you better off in terms of hourly rate playing SnGs? My history seems to indicate that I do better at SnGs than in ring games. Is this an indication that SnGs are inherently more profitable, or just that I may be a little better at NLHE SnGs?

My bankroll (now at near $400), allows me to play .50/1.00 limit ring games and $10 (almost $20) 1-table SnGs.

Unfortunately, I don't have good records of my play (still working on it...note to self, ask for PokerTracker for birthday), but if we assume that good ring play will give you 2 BB/hr (a little more than the standard 1 BB/hr that's considered winning poker), and that good SnG play will give you an ROI of around 30% (a fairly conservative estimate given some of the posts here) and that on average you can play 3 SnGs in two hours (anybody with better numbers here?). Here's what I come up with. In two hours, I'm going to make an hourly rate of 2 bucks in my ring game, and I'm going to make an hourly rate of 5 bucks (.30 * 33 = $10 over the two hours) in my SnGs.

Now, these numbers aren't perfect, but I think they're a starting point.

Any comments/corrections/flames/better numbers?

CCC