Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   One-table Tournaments (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs? (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=339204)

09-18-2005 02:38 AM

Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I play limit ring games, at the moment the .50/1.00 partypoker 6max tables. As this is the lowest limit partypoker tables, with the loosest worst players, making 6BB per 100 hands, or $4.50 per hour for one table, is doable for a good player. The generally accepted wisdom is that one needs a 300 big bet bankroll at limit, so a $300 bankroll.

I've read that at the lowest limit STT's, a 30% ROI would be reasonable for a good player, and that a STT might take an hour. Given this, the lowest level STT's at partypoker would make much less than the lowest level limit ring games. $5+1 X 30% = $1.80 per hour. $10+1 X 30% = $3.30 per hour. $22 X 30% = $6.60 per hour, if one could really make 30% on the $22's, and from what I've read most here are not making that much.

Also, 50 buyins is the recommended bankroll, meaning you'd have to have an $1100 bankroll and play the $22's to likely make the same amount one could make at partypoker's lowest limit 6max ring games, .50/1.00.

Add to this the fact that at partypoker and skins, STT's don't count towards bonuses, and it seems like ring games are a lot more profitable at the lowest levels than STT's.

Am I wrong here?

(Of course, 6BB/100 hands is only doable at the very lowest level loosest tables, move up even slightly and you're hoping for 3bb/100 instead, move up higher and you're hoping for 2)

tjh 09-18-2005 03:01 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
You may be right but I am in no mood to check the math.

If some of the regulars chose to respond to this you might find that you get some responses that echo the following sentiments.

Ring games are boring.
Limit ring games are extremely boring.
Micro stakes limit ring games are sheer torture.

Build a bankroll there ? Sure no problem.
Work off a bonus or two ? Indeed.
Play them for a living ? Well you have to get some enjoyment from your work so maybe not.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

SNG's provide the following non-monetary rewards.
<ul type="square">[*]A little bit of drama[*]A little bit of variety[*]Increments of small set amount of risk for decent rewards[*]A scenario that is challenging and has a set time limit, well more or less it has a beginning an end, ring games are eternal and monotonous[/list]
There is a perception that SNG's offer less variance. I have not seen the numbers to support this but I do not doubt that it is true.

So SNG is at least more fun. Also as a relatively narrow slice of the poker world it may be harder for the fish to find good advice on SNG play. Most books focus on Limit or else NL multi tournies. So the expertise for SNG is something you have to search 2+2 for. The expert advice for Limit is available at every bookstore in the country.

Just my opinion. I keep trying to switch to NL ring but the majority of my profit continues to come from local tournies and SNG.

--
tjh

09-18-2005 03:42 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
Yeah, the reason I looked into this is that the limit ring games I've been playing are a bit of a grind. I've tried some freeroll tournaments, and while they have too many players chasing too little money, I found them to be much more fun than the ring games I'm used to.

Stepping down to making $1.50 an hour playing the lowest level STT's, though, which is where I would presumably have to start, doesn't sound so appealing. I mean, I've done better than $1.50 an hour playing frerolls.

EnderFFX 09-18-2005 03:57 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
For me the appeal of SnG isn't from playing 1 table it is from playing 8-12 tables at a time. Can this be done on limit ring? I don't know but let me throw facts at you.

- SnG at the lowest levels can be broken down into formulatic playing aka, once you get used to the system, there is a straight forward method of playing which guarantees you money in the long run. (provided you playing the levels appropriately, don't tilt, and truly know what you are doing)

- Tilting on a tournament will cost you at the most X dollars. (cost of the tournament you are playing) The funny thing is, tilting the correct way can almost be appropriate play. If a player tilts in the larger blinds, and just starts pushing left and right, he might find himself winning the tournament. Ring play, however, is less forgiving on tilting.

- Tight players don't clear bonuses on sng. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] So when a bonus hits, the play won't dramatically change.

- A majority of people playing low limit SnG play them completely wrong. They play loose early, tight later, when it is actually the opposite.

- 8 tabling, 30-50 buyins is good for low lmit SnG. 8 tabling $0.50 - $1 with only a $300 bankroll. 8 tables with $300 = $37.50 per table. If you play with $37.50 per table, during some sessions, a table or two will go broke.

- SnG, on average probably take 40-45 minutes. If you bust 10th, you are playing for 10-15 minutes, and some wins take only 40 minutes. Whenever I run an 8 game set, I normally finish the last game after 45 minutes. Once in a while they run long.

I'm not disagreeing with your calculations, or points, just bringing you some SnG facts.

chisness 09-18-2005 04:11 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
sngs are not exactly very fun either

from my experience, poker can either be played for pleasure where it's fun or more as a job where regardless of type of game played, if you're doing it the right way (lots of tables, etc.) it's going to be profitable, but not overly enjoyable (compared to most "games," yet still far better than a typical job)

raptor517 09-18-2005 04:16 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

as far as sngs vs low limit 6 max goes.. how many tables of 6 max can you play? MAYBE 8, and that would be disgustingly fast. ive done 8 5-10 6max games before, and had a tough tough time with it. i can 20 table 22s without near as much thought or trouble.

as far as bankroll goes.. anybody playing the 22s on 1100 should move up, unless they are retarded like me and love to play 3209580923923 tables with no variance and no stress.

again, i know you said the whole 6bb/100 only doable at x level, but even at .5-1 6 max, if you are 4 tabling, which is still quite a bit too fast for most people, you will NOT get over 4bb/100. you just wont, i dont care who you are.

dont get me wrong, as of late i have been playing more and more cash games, and havent really been running well, but have been wondering why i EVER stopped playing them. then i realized how pissed i get when people call me down after potting the whole way facing a 3 flush board and 4 overcards. oh wait, thats me steaming. ZING. thats why.

in sngs, if you are steaming, you might make a SLIGHTLY incorrect -ev shove, maybe to the tune of -.5% or something. whatever, it happens. if i go on tilt in sngs, my results simply wont change. when im playing massive tables, i play exactly the same no matter what, and all the pushes and calls i could program my calculator to make.

in ring games, you have to think. a lot. you ahve to use yer brain, adjust to different situations, and think a lot on the fly. this limits the number of tables you can play, and also causes more strain on the ol noggin, which causes sessions to be generally shorter.

as far as playing for the future, and higher stakes stuff, cash games are bar none the best way to go, which is why im gradually going in that direction. the ol law of diminishing returns is much kinder to us poker players in deep stack ring games, as you can only do so much with those quickly escalating blinds.

so which side of the argument am i taking? well, i definitely think playing sngs up to the 55 level or so is wayyyyy more profitable than similar bankroll required ring games, as its so simple to just add more and more tables and go pushbot mode. after that though.. the idiots in cash games, especially NL cash games.. make it worth learning over sngs. (that was long.. hope its useful, i dont generally make long posts) holla

09-18-2005 04:27 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter

Mr_J 09-18-2005 04:28 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
"so a $300 bankroll."

Off that same $300 BR you could 8table $11s for 20% ROI and make $27/hr.

8tabling sngs is probally no worse than 4tabling 6max in terms of effort.

FWIW I'm now playing ring myself, not because of hourly rates, just because I like the change of pace.

raptor517 09-18-2005 05:07 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter

[/ QUOTE ]

ok im sorry, i should elaborate. no limit game on PARTY can be beat for 6bb/100, simply due to the rake. holla

09-18-2005 05:33 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter

[/ QUOTE ]

ok im sorry, i should elaborate. no limit game on PARTY can be beat for 6bb/100, simply due to the rake. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the rake is/was at stars, but I suspect that party .50/1 is equivalent in skill level to stars .25/.50. At the partypoker 6max tables, it's not hard to find a table with a 50% average VP$IP. Half the players will be loose aggressives, raising with nothing and driving the pot up. The others will be loose passive, only raising when they have better than a pair, so you can fold and they win no money off you. If you play only one table, instead of 2 or 4 or 8, you can indeed make 6 BB/100. Multitablers lose more of an edge than they realize, I think.

lacky 09-18-2005 06:29 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
well, playing one table maybe you can sustain 6bb/100 at .5/1, but who would want to? I suppose I'm baises and have lost touch with my beginings by now, but the thought of one tabling for $5 an hour or so gives me a headache. Limit is boring even playing 6 to 10 tables. I'm averaging over $200/hour at 20/40 and 30/60 and still cant make myself play most days cause it's never what I feel like doing, even though it's what I should be doing. I started at .5/1, playing 3, then 6 tables back when you could only play 3 at a time on party. If money is at all your motivation, you really need to learn to play more tables. Even if you drop to 2.5bb/100 playing 4 tables, your way ahead, and it's not so mind numbingly dull (but still pretty bad [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Steve

johnnybeef 09-18-2005 07:24 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
as far as playing for the future, and higher stakes stuff, cash games are bar none the best way to go, which is why im gradually going in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe in the long long run, NLHE tourneys are gonna be around for quite some time.

ps. I was absolutely retarded last night, sorry to all i drunken dialed and made no sense to [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

bones 09-18-2005 07:42 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Off that same $300 BR you could 8table $11s for 20% ROI and make $27/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be a very competant sng player with a lot of multi-tabling experience for this to occur.

09-18-2005 07:47 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I agree. Easy to say 8 table for 20% ROI but harder to do at any buyuin. Most people just aren't capable of doing this no matter how easy it may seem to some people.

lacky 09-18-2005 07:52 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
hell, most people cant play winning poker period. I used to think any intelegent person could learn it. I was wrong.

Steve

09-18-2005 07:57 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
Intelligent person? Hell a monkey is supposed to be able to beat low limit PP games right?

Every time I hear people say something like they could teach a monkey to play blah blah blah I always think they should try teaching someone sometime. I have spent a fair bit of time teaching people who have asked me to and based on my experience you can expect 1-2 out of 10 to do fairly well but no more. Maybe I'm just a lousy teacher but I don't think so.

Moonsugar 09-18-2005 09:38 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
hell, most people cant play winning poker period. I used to think any intelegent person could learn it. I was wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]

POTC

ilya 09-18-2005 09:55 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

as far as sngs vs low limit 6 max goes.. how many tables of 6 max can you play? MAYBE 8, and that would be disgustingly fast. ive done 8 5-10 6max games before, and had a tough tough time with it. i can 20 table 22s without near as much thought or trouble.

as far as bankroll goes.. anybody playing the 22s on 1100 should move up, unless they are retarded like me and love to play 3209580923923 tables with no variance and no stress.

again, i know you said the whole 6bb/100 only doable at x level, but even at .5-1 6 max, if you are 4 tabling, which is still quite a bit too fast for most people, you will NOT get over 4bb/100. you just wont, i dont care who you are.

dont get me wrong, as of late i have been playing more and more cash games, and havent really been running well, but have been wondering why i EVER stopped playing them. then i realized how pissed i get when people call me down after potting the whole way facing a 3 flush board and 4 overcards. oh wait, thats me steaming. ZING. thats why.

in sngs, if you are steaming, you might make a SLIGHTLY incorrect -ev shove, maybe to the tune of -.5% or something. whatever, it happens. if i go on tilt in sngs, my results simply wont change. when im playing massive tables, i play exactly the same no matter what, and all the pushes and calls i could program my calculator to make.

in ring games, you have to think. a lot. you ahve to use yer brain, adjust to different situations, and think a lot on the fly. this limits the number of tables you can play, and also causes more strain on the ol noggin, which causes sessions to be generally shorter.

as far as playing for the future, and higher stakes stuff, cash games are bar none the best way to go, which is why im gradually going in that direction. the ol law of diminishing returns is much kinder to us poker players in deep stack ring games, as you can only do so much with those quickly escalating blinds.

so which side of the argument am i taking? well, i definitely think playing sngs up to the 55 level or so is wayyyyy more profitable than similar bankroll required ring games, as its so simple to just add more and more tables and go pushbot mode. after that though.. the idiots in cash games, especially NL cash games.. make it worth learning over sngs. (that was long.. hope its useful, i dont generally make long posts) holla

[/ QUOTE ]

holy gregariousness batman, this post may have a bigger word count than all your other posts combined!!!

Degen 09-18-2005 09:59 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

as far as sngs vs low limit 6 max goes.. how many tables of 6 max can you play? MAYBE 8, and that would be disgustingly fast. ive done 8 5-10 6max games before, and had a tough tough time with it. i can 20 table 22s without near as much thought or trouble.

as far as bankroll goes.. anybody playing the 22s on 1100 should move up, unless they are retarded like me and love to play 3209580923923 tables with no variance and no stress.

again, i know you said the whole 6bb/100 only doable at x level, but even at .5-1 6 max, if you are 4 tabling, which is still quite a bit too fast for most people, you will NOT get over 4bb/100. you just wont, i dont care who you are.

dont get me wrong, as of late i have been playing more and more cash games, and havent really been running well, but have been wondering why i EVER stopped playing them. then i realized how pissed i get when people call me down after potting the whole way facing a 3 flush board and 4 overcards. oh wait, thats me steaming. ZING. thats why.

in sngs, if you are steaming, you might make a SLIGHTLY incorrect -ev shove, maybe to the tune of -.5% or something. whatever, it happens. if i go on tilt in sngs, my results simply wont change. when im playing massive tables, i play exactly the same no matter what, and all the pushes and calls i could program my calculator to make.

in ring games, you have to think. a lot. you ahve to use yer brain, adjust to different situations, and think a lot on the fly. this limits the number of tables you can play, and also causes more strain on the ol noggin, which causes sessions to be generally shorter.

as far as playing for the future, and higher stakes stuff, cash games are bar none the best way to go, which is why im gradually going in that direction. the ol law of diminishing returns is much kinder to us poker players in deep stack ring games, as you can only do so much with those quickly escalating blinds.

so which side of the argument am i taking? well, i definitely think playing sngs up to the 55 level or so is wayyyyy more profitable than similar bankroll required ring games, as its so simple to just add more and more tables and go pushbot mode. after that though.. the idiots in cash games, especially NL cash games.. make it worth learning over sngs. (that was long.. hope its useful, i dont generally make long posts) holla

[/ QUOTE ]

holy gregariousness batman, this post may have a bigger word count than all your other posts combined!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

great post tho

care to share some numbers with us rap? how many 20 tabling, roi/itm....biggest swings etc

Angelic_Ace 09-18-2005 10:22 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I have been a SNG grinder for a year, with the occasional cash game play. Lately I've devoted myself 90% to NL cash games on Empire and I'm shocked how much more $ I am making. My hourly rate is significantly higher over the last month than I ever made on SNGs. I started out just nut peddling 50 and 100 NL, and I have played up to 400 NL and there are often more maniacs and fish there than even the low levels. If you have good table selection skills, I really believe NL ring games, especially six max, are far more profitable than SNGs for me. I find them more entertaining as well, as SNGs have become so instinctive and methodical to me that they are more work than fun. I still love live tourny play, but online I think I am headed towards becoming a six max - NL specialist.

Mr_J 09-18-2005 10:48 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
"You'd have to be a very competant sng player with a lot of multi-tabling experience for this to occur."

Not at all. If you mean that's a short BR, you'll obviously add profits to it. If you mean hitting 20% 8tabling $11s then I disagree. You might think it's hard, I don't. I guess it depends on the person.

Loveinvain:

"Most people just aren't capable of doing this no matter how easy it may seem to some people."

I agree. When it comes to gambling, most people seem to turn their stupidity switch on. Just because most people can't do it doesn't mean it's difficult. I know that sounds weird but it's not like sngs are hard to beat.

09-18-2005 10:53 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have been a SNG grinder for a year, with the occasional cash game play. Lately I've devoted myself 90% to NL cash games on Empire and I'm shocked how much more $ I am making. My hourly rate is significantly higher over the last month than I ever made on SNGs. I started out just nut peddling 50 and 100 NL, and I have played up to 400 NL and there are often more maniacs and fish there than even the low levels. If you have good table selection skills, I really believe NL ring games, especially six max, are far more profitable than SNGs for me. I find them more entertaining as well, as SNGs have become so instinctive and methodical to me that they are more work than fun. I still love live tourny play, but online I think I am headed towards becoming a six max - NL specialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What level of SnG's were you playing?

Because I just play $22's now, and I think money comes easier than at $3/$6 limit. Of course, if I'd play $1000NL I'd make more there (if I'm that good), but I don't play that high.

09-18-2005 11:30 AM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've read that at the lowest limit STT's, a 30% ROI would be reasonable for a good player, and that a STT might take an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]Two things: at the lowest limit SNGs you can probably do better than 30% ROI and they only take an hour if you win (or show) -- when you are out of the money they won't take as long, so you might figure 20-30 minutes for an average SNG.

Angelic_Ace 09-18-2005 12:15 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I would say less than 5% of low level SNG players could achieve greater than 30% ROI. That is absolutely crushing the game.

Angelic_Ace 09-18-2005 12:17 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I played 10s and 20s for a long time, now I have moved up to the 50s. Ive made a lot more money 4 tabling 100 NL than 4 tabling 22s with a 20% ROI. Thats just me though, and it might not stand true for the long long run.

09-18-2005 12:40 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would say less than 5% of low level SNG players could achieve greater than 30% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]But, what % of 2+2 forum readers could beat 30%?

Angelic_Ace 09-18-2005 12:54 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
Im not sure , but there is a huge difference between 20 and 30 percent ROI. That's all Im saying. Any decent player can get 20% at low leves, 30% you have to be doing something above and beyond just tight early / push late

1C5 09-18-2005 01:02 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I think you have to better than decent to get 20% ROI at the 11s, 22s and 33s (ie, lower levels).

Moonsugar 09-18-2005 02:25 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say less than 5% of low level SNG players could achieve greater than 30% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]But, what % of 2+2 forum readers could beat 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]

less than 5%

raptor517 09-18-2005 02:27 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say less than 5% of low level SNG players could achieve greater than 30% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]But, what % of 2+2 forum readers could beat 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]

not near as many as you think. the difference between 20% and 30% is about 102098520980953 times bigger than the difference between 10% and 20%. holla

09-18-2005 02:53 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to better than decent to get 20% ROI at the 11s, 22s and 33s (ie, lower levels).

[/ QUOTE ]The OP was talking about the lowest level SNG, i.e. the $5 games.

I don't mean to insist I was right about 30+%. That is my impression, but if those with more experience disagree, I will give up -- I'm not willing to play 1000 $5 SNG to try to make a point!

lorinda 09-18-2005 03:00 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
The word "doable" is misleading.

I will argue until I'm blue in the face that you can win over $4 per $11 SNG, but the correct answer is that in 99% of cases, "you" probably can't.

The "doable" numbers match up, as do the "usual" numbers (3bb/100 vs 20% ROI = very similar hourly rate)

Lori

lacky 09-18-2005 03:00 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
I've had the same success, I've taught 4, one is a decent winner at 22's, and 2/4.

Guthrie 09-18-2005 03:12 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
How many SNGs does it take before ROI becomes meaningful?

After a seemingly never-ending downswing at limit ring games, I decided to blow off stome steam at SNGs, which I had never played. I started off with an ROI so high it can't possibly be sustainable, but I'd like to know how long before I start to think I actually have a talent for the game instead of an incredible run of luck.

As far as the OP's question, at the moment, SNGs are far more profitable for me than limit ring games, but I have no idea what the future holds.

lorinda 09-18-2005 03:18 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
Around 1000 is where things get reasonable, although your ITM can give you a clue a little sooner than that.

You can be a 25% ROI winner and have regular 100 tourney streaks (I've lost my favorite post link with the details) with a negative ROI

Lori

bawcerelli 09-18-2005 03:27 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would say less than 5% of low level SNG players could achieve greater than 30% ROI. That is absolutely crushing the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm just under 50% roi over ~300 5 +.50 4-6 tabling. it's not really that hard

miami32 09-18-2005 03:35 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
There is no way this is possible. I have played 11 dollar sitngos when I first started out and with roi of about 35% or so. If you play them in high volumes and 4 table you make much more cash with less varience much faster. I also did this with a $330 bankroll and moved up every time I got 30 buy ins for the next level. I am almost 100% sure of this. Also the grind of ring games is long and terrible. I have played as high as 15/30 four tabling and I would rather play sitngos any day of the week.

raptor517 09-18-2005 05:46 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way this is possible. I have played 11 dollar sitngos when I first started out and with roi of about 35% or so. If you play them in high volumes and 4 table you make much more cash with less varience much faster. I also did this with a $330 bankroll and moved up every time I got 30 buy ins for the next level. I am almost 100% sure of this. Also the grind of ring games is long and terrible. I have played as high as 15/30 four tabling and I would rather play sitngos any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

once you have played more sngs, you wont want to play either ever. holla

smb394 09-18-2005 07:42 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also the grind of ring games is long and terrible. I have played as high as 15/30 four tabling and I would rather play sitngos any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I multitable ring games, and play maybe 8-10 SNGs per week as a way to mix things up. I feel the opposite of your statement.

As Raptor said, ring forces you to make many more decisions, which I find to very stimulating. The early stages of SNGs are fairly boring to me, and as a whole they can be formulaic. Part of it for me might be that I feel stronger as a ring player than I do in SNGs b/c I've played way more over there.

But, variance in ring sucks. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

FWIW, 22s and $3-6 LHE (full, some 6max)

miami32 09-18-2005 08:01 PM

Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?
 
yeah to be honest I pretty much hate online play now. I love playing live still though. Sucks though, with my crim justice degree there is pretty much nothing I can do to make more money then I make now.

Thats right, I do it for the money bitches.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.