Results from my last 277 SnG's (Help?)

[Bozeman]

Is my goal (50% ROI at $109 SnGs) attainable?

After a great november and a long breakeven stretch, I am not doing as well as I'd hoped in $109 SnGs.

I have played 277 at Party, and here is how my money has gone:


The green line shows $50/SnG, still less than my goal of $54.5. The blue line shows my current average $32.9. This graph shows the immense possibility for variability in results, such that 300 may not provide a good measure of win rate. In addition, 100 may not tell you statistically if you are playing good or bad. I realize the great run at the beginning is not sustainable, but I thought I could stay closer to that.

I think I have identified some of the factors involved in my long flat stretch, unfortunately one of them seems to table selection, which was never very important at $55s. I also have identified a few small leaks that I believe I have plugged.

In addition, my finish histogram looks like this:


I am very disappointed, because I have always at lower buyins had a smoothly decreasing function, but now I am getting less than 15% 1st's. The drop from 2nd to 1st sems to be statistically significant. I realize that a good player will usually reach headsup without a chip lead, but it seems that the level of shorthanded play at these is reasonably good: no one seems to make the horrendous mistake of folding too many hands, while many did at the $55 level. Still, I see some room for improvement. Any suggestions? I also am bothered that the slope is not that large. Am I playing too loose early? Am I stealing incorrectly? Am I playing the wrong kind of speculative hands? Am I not being selective enough about tables? Anyone else want to share their histogram?

I always looked at 50% ROI as a goal to surpass before moving up in levels. Has its usefulness decreased? Should I try the $215 level?

Any other thoughts?
Thanks,
Craig

[BradleyT]

What did you plug that into to get the histogram?

[William]

I like the graphics, specially the red dots [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[eMarkM]

I think 50% ROI is way too lofty a goal for this level. Reminds me of the people who "expected" these kinds of returns and better in the stock market during the late 90s. I think it's unrealistic in the long run. Not at these buy-in levels. You don't have the same chowderheads here that the people who supposedly have 50% ROI on this forum play against in the lower buy-in events (and for too small a sample size in many cases). You can't extrapolate what you did in lower buyins to the higher buyins. If just two or three other guys in these events are playing that know what they're doing and the rest are still clueless, this is going to eat into your earn as they're going to be standing in your way come bubble time when the dead money is gone. And this is typically the case at the higher buyins.

Don't be so hard on yourself. 30% return on your money is very good, whatever your endeavor. And this is for much more serious money than the guys dinkin' around with $10+1 tourneys. Assuming each SNG takes an hour, you play two SNGs at once, 8 hours a day, 2000 hours a year and you're playing 4000 SNGs and bringing down +$130K. That's not acceptable to you? You really think you could sustain 50% ROI working full time over a year and bring down nearly a quarter million dollars?? I think you set your goals too high. Not even sure 30% is realistic if talking a few thousand SNGs. And we won't even get into the fact that these games WILL dry up once the Golden Age of Poker starts to wane and these horrible player either go broke or get a lot better. It's not always going to be this easy.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think a 50% ROI is also tough at a single-table. At a 2-table at 'Stars, assuming an even distribution among the 4 money spots, you need to finish in the money 36.67% of the time.

At a single-table with the standard payout, you'd need to money 49.5% of the time for a 50% ROI.

Outlast 70% of your opponents 49% of the time vs. outlast 78% of your opponents 37% of the time for the same return.

Maybe I should stop posting this and keep the good players elsewhere, but it sure looks like an easy decision where to play.

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Craig,

Like Mark, I think you're probably beating yourself up too much here. Tournaments are about stronger players divvying the dead money of weaker players, and as you move up in the stakes, there's less dead money available to divvy.

Cris

[Bozeman]

Thanks all. Consensus seems to be that it is, as I expected (thus the ? in my help title), difficult to impossible to get 50% ROI here. What I'd like to know, is if it truly is impossible, since really difficult would still be a nice challenge.

The few data points that I have that suggest it may be possible: 1) long term ROI of 50% at $55's.
2) If I divide my results into bins for different playing times, I get results that are almost 1SD above $50/SnG for the best times (and results that are indistinguishable from breakeven for the worst times)
3)Daniel Negreanu claimed that he was doing this at the $100 level (I am not him, but he is not an impossible person)
4)Online Poker is having a huge boom, so if it is ever possible, it is now (Daniel's results were a few years ago, though probably not more than 500 games)

I don't think I need to play against total chowderheads to get (close to, at least) these results, I just need to face a fair number of players who are too loose, too tight, too easy to read, or tighten up when I loosen up or vice versa.

I think one should be able to increase my 1st percentage slightly.

I can't play many at a time, results definitely suffer for 3, not sure about for 2, if I could keep the final 3's separate I might do almost as well.

Anyway, it is a goal, and if it was certain, it wouldn't intrigue me. As it is, I think it may be possible, but may be as much a product of luck as good play.

Also, can anyone here compare the $215's to the $109's? How is the level of play at P* $109's?

Craig

[Bozeman]

"assuming an even distribution among the 4 money spots"

I don't think anyone should be aiming for an even distribution of money spots.

"Maybe I should stop posting this and keep the good players elsewhere, but it sure looks like an easy decision where to play. "

I don't think this is by any means an easy decision. I think that more (fractionally) tournament adjustments are required with fewer people (though partially offsetting this is that 2 tables require adjustments in both directions). I don't see 37% in the top 22% being easier than 50% in the top 30%. On the other hand, the flatter payout makes for some bigger tournament adjustments. The P* players seem to be better. There is often a long wait for a $109 game at P*.

Craig

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Craig,

[ QUOTE ]
How is the level of play at P* $109's?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a word: tough.

I've played in I guess around 20 of these (just got PokerTracker so I can keep better records), and so far as I can remember, I won one 1st place, chopped 1st/2nd once, and (I think) had one 2nd. Much too small a sample set to be useful in terms of personal results, but I think I have played and observed enough to perhaps offer some insights.

Overall, the play is extremely tight. The weaker players are weak-tight; the tougher players are sneaky-tight. But almost all of the players are tight. I have more than once seen the first 2-3 pots folded to the BB. Also, the play is far more deliberate than even the $55 SNGs; people tend to take their time and weigh each option before acting.

Add those factors together with the fact that blinds rise by time at PokerStars, and it's not at all unusual to see 12+ people still around when the blinds hit 100/200 (at 48 minutes). However, typically about half will be hovering around 1600-2000 chips, which means they're now in all-in-or-fold territory with only 8-10xBB left. So a lot of the thinning happens at the 100/200 (just before the break) and 100/200+25 (just after the break) levels.

What that means, to me at least, is that you need to build a stack and get into the top six places fairly early, then maintain that through to the final table. A big stack is a huge advantage in a tight game, because people will respect your raises (even if they're obvious steals) rather than to risk going bust nearing the bubble. And of course, you'd much rather not be in all-in-or-fold territory just as the bubble approaches.

Put all of that together, and it seems to be a case of steal early and often. The pre-flop play is tight, but usually aggressive. There aren't many limps, and most pots are taken by the first raiser or reraiser. When there is a flop, it's usually heads-up, and the post-flop play tends to be cautious. Usually there's a steal hand vs. a made hand, where the stealer is wondering if it's a resteal or if he has the best hand, the made hand is wondering if it's still good, or someone's trapping with a monster. The huge pots tend to be big pair vs. big pair, big pair vs. hidden set, or big pair vs. big draw.

The $215s at PokerStars, from what I've seen (played two, not close to the money in either, and have observed several others) are similar in most ways, only more so. Several of the tournament leaders from PokerStars seem to play in all of these, so make of that what you will.

The other point, though, is as you've noted in another thread: the $109s at PokerStars tend to take awhile to fill, often 45 minutes or more, and sometimes you can sit there for an hour or more and never get more than two or three other players sign up (and eventually leave). I'm finding it difficult to find two of these per evening, so if you were going to rely on them as your primary family income, that may be a factor.

Cris

[maplepig]

at this level, anything above 25% is very good, feel happy about your result here, play till you reach 1000 games, most likely your result will drop a little. I have played over 1000 of these, and I don't believe anyone can consistently get over 40% ROI.