Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

Just a random thought...if there were SnGs offered at, say, 2000+100, or 5000+250, or whatever...and in the future, there may be...

Would the best player in the world be able to beat the vig?

1) if only the 10 best players in the world were playing
2) if there is one or two sub-par players ponying up

I think you see where im going with this, but if not:

Say a very very good player can attain:

40% ROI @ 10+1
35% ROI @ 20+2
30% ROI @ 30+3
25% ROI @ 50+4
20% ROI @ 100+8
15% ROI @ 200+15
(or whatever, fabricated #'s)

Well, his return for all these is AFTER the vig. i.e. 30% ROI is more like 40% ROI from the actual poker being played (math error acknowledged, and ignored).

What im asking is, do you think there could be games where the best player couldnt beat the vigorish? Long term I mean. He would still be "winning", but his ROI may be below zero.

I think its reasonable to assume that you wont get too many whales in a $5000 tourney that lasts for only an hour. SO, probably, the worst player at theese imaginary stakes would still be ranked as an "A-" player.

This kind of assumes the sites wont put a rake cap in. If the normal limit games now are 10%, and the highest limits closer to 8%, it seems reasonable that, if offered, these games would still have a 5% vig or more.

Assorted questions:

-What do you think will be the highest buy-in next year? in 2 years? etc.

-Will there be any whales playing these games?

-Could the worlds best SNG player beat the vig versus 9 other pros? 8 pros, 1 fish?

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account.

The world's best SNG player would probably still have a positive ROI in your hypothetical biggest game.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

"I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account"

It does. By 'winning' with a -EV I think he means better than 30% ITM, but not enough to beat the vig.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I think your assumption that bad players wouldn't play is wrong. Just look at the 25 50 nl game at ub. Lots of good players, lots of fish. When people will play $100,000 hands of blackjack why do you think they would shy away from a $5000 sng?

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Limpin', he does have a point. $5000 is much too low when you consider that the The Biggest (Side) Game can go as high as $100,000-$200,000. also, the best $215 SNG players, IMHO, are no where near the caliber of "best" players in the world" and would'nt stand a long-term chance playing in SNGs at the stakes that would warrant these players (best of the best, i.e. Barry Greenstein) time.

a $50,000 buy-in for a SNG, played by the most elite cash game players in the world, would be a good figure. however, it would be very interesting to find out how one would profit from these over the long run. an elite player against lesser players, definitely +$EV. an elite player against other equally skilled elite players, i'd say -$EV to breakeven to slight +$EV.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

If it's a $50K SNG the vig on it's going to max out at, like, 1%.

I think SOMEONE in that game'll have a 1% edge.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

lol. even at 1%, imagine a $500 vig. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

BTW FWIW When you speak of "The Best Players in the world" And you are talking about performance in a SnG And what level would they play in etc...

The best players in the world as far as SnGs are concerned can be found in one place... They are playing SNGs right now at the 215 level.. SnG is a special game, and until you have studied on special SNG strat then I dont care what poker super star you are you arent better then the ones grinding it out right now playing SnGs. Illl bet if XYZ poker star sat down at a 30+3 he would have a lower roi then me until he learned the game style.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus topped out at 23%

Seriously, 20% is about the max, and that's likely only doable single tabling very selectively.

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a chance in hell. I'd book that bet all day, every day, (if I wasn't currently broke...)

You stick Negraneu at a table with PP's SNG structure along with Gigabet, Dr._Gammon, ZeeJustin, Rojosox, myself, and 4 random players of varying skill, and he would have a hard time beating the rake,(as would we all).

The top players at party are among the top players in the world for that structure currently playing, period, and many excellent NL players have a hard time adjusting to them.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I was talking about *average* $200 SNGs, not the ones full of all the best regulars, but even then, you guys are good, but not *that* good. Get over yourself.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

What would happen is this:

-Negreanu raises with two cards
-Gigabet/redsoxr1/actionmonkey reraise with two cards
-Negreanu folds
-Dr_Gammon calls and bitches about getting sucked out on

Repeat for a few dozen SNG's until he adjusts, at which point they all wind up within 5% of each other and push chips back and forth all day because none of them make all that many mistakes.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I think your way off on this. Many top pros play some single table satalites which are similar, but not exactly like normal sng's. The best of the best would not have a problem see the differences and adjusting.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I'm going to agree with Daliman on this one... I'm not one of the regulars or anything, but I play some 215s when I feel my game is on point and I can make a few bucks if I catch a hot streak; I hold down a ~10% ROI, though I do it as much for sport as anything else. Anyhow, I really dont think the game can be played much better than the top 215 players play it. There's a certain way to play the game that they all understand, and I dont think any of the world's best could really find a significant edge over the strategies that the top 215 players employ. It's just too quick, and too relatively simple, of a game. I'm sure they could adjust, but the structure is such that either you're playing a winning or losing game at the 215s, there's very little gray area. The bets during crunch time are also very black and white -- I challenge anyone to put me on a hand any time I raise in level 4+, it's just not doable -- and there's also very little room to play the hands out, you either get in or get out. I do see a Negreanu getting way more 1sts than seconds, working over some of the top 215 players in heads up situations, and maybe that would be the edge, but up until then I think it's about zero sum between him and a guy like Daliman.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Or DonButtons
Or thehorror

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

also
 

i think $215 SNGs are alot like $15-$30 Limit, whereas stakes like $30000 + $600 SNGs could attract play on par with $1500-$3000 Limit.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a good point about the win % in the 100's vs the 200's. Although I doubt the people you know that are at 30% are playing solely 100's, or if they are, they are likely not in long run at all yet, I DO think 30% is attainable there. And yes, 200's had reached a bit of a maximum density, but the STEPS have served to clear the waters extremely well.

WHy do I play the 200's then when I am low on BR? Because I am stubborn, vain, immature, and petulant. Other than that, I'm a great guy [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's debateable though, because again, you speaking about $215 SNGs...not $30600 ones. your confidence in your play/skill level and that of others like Dr_Gammon, Gigabet, ZeeJustin, spyhard, etc. is based predominately on a game at a stake that you are comfortable and familiar with. i think, IMHO, that players like Ivey would eclispe Party's current $215 crop given adjustment to their structure and if the stakes were higher. the title of this thread deals with ULTRA HIGH BUY-IN SNGs, not the $215 ones that Party's elite grind out and are confident in beating.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron. Sorry to be blunt and rude, but i cant think of any other way to respond to this tripe.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue that short stack poker ultimately has less skill than deep money poker, as it involves more decisions preflop. Simple as that.

On the flip side, there's additional skills in these things which require time and experience to master: playing stacks, understanding equity apart from chipEV, etc.

But your "more of a luck factor" statement doesn't make any sense. Everybody gets the same luck. It's not a factor.

But, that being said, so what? If I could earn as much money flipping coins, I'd do it. I'm not in this for the vanity of playing "the most skilled game" or whatever. If that was my bag I'd be playing chess (or something) for money.

eastbay

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally off-topic, but when i was first starting out, i used to frequent recpoker.com (i know better now). I dont think i learned jack from reading it, but there was one post that i remember well. It was, perhaps, the hardest i have laughed after reading a poker post.

This guy, makes a post:

Subject:I could beat Jesus Christ if he played at Pacific Poker

Body Its true. He's be all "look at me i'm going to turn water into wine" and change hearts into spades so he can catch his Jesus flush, but I'd be all,"Full house bitch, now give me your f'n money"

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

So is your argument that mastering something that is simpler than the most complex game requires no skill?

There's still plenty of skill involved in the sngs, even though there is alot of brute science involved. Noticing opponents' tendencies being high amongst those that are necessary.

Plainly put, if EVERYONE involved with the game perfectly mastered all the skills used, then the results would be entirely determined by luck. Since they don't, there is skill. The existence of +ROI long term players is proof enough of this.

citanul

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

Apparently I should read whole threads more often. I apologize.

citanul

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

I think that amongst the other clear implications of earlier questions posed in this thread is that if:

Dollar Return on a 50 = Dollar Return on a 100 = Dollar return on a 200 > 0

for a given player,

and this player has a rechargeable bankroll, this player may want to play the 200s, since variance can be your friend, in some ways.

citanul

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I was talking about *average* $200 SNGs, not the ones full of all the best regulars, but even then, you guys are good, but not *that* good. Get over yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement makes it glaringly obvious that you don't play at the $200+15 level. Try not to lecture others on things you know nothing about.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).

2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.

This is if you're talking about limit. In NL at a level like 2/4, then perhaps your right as stacks would be quite big and skill between very good and great would play a much larger role. But in limit, the best PP grinders are making surprisingly close to (but I'll admit probably lower) what the big game players would make once adjusting.

Yugoslav

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

It's pretty clear to me that when he says 2-4 3-6 he means 200-400 and 300-600 and not the super low limits. Also, I have to agree with him. Not only would Phil Ivey be beating the worse players for more than the regular 300 600 players, but he would be beating the regulars themselves for a significant amount.

-Ezcheeze

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I apologize for not being clear. Generally in my circles people refer to 100 200 200 400 300 600 as 1-2 2-4 3-6.

[ QUOTE ]
2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok well my comments were about Phil I winrates at 300 600. Since I wasnt talking about $3/$6 Im not going to respond to that. But many people have theorized that the upper limits in full table limit ring games is around 3BB per hour. Clearly game situations will develop where there could be a maniac who adds so much money to every pot that the earn is higher.. Also shorthanded the win rates are much much higher.

Re: Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?
 

Party has $1000 buy in singles. A lot of people buy directly into the step 5 and some even multi table them.