[Oluwafemi]

[ 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.