Difference btwn. 30+3 and 50+5

slydeni · #1 01-22-2005, 01:15 AM

I play 30+3 on Party and win consistantly. I avg. about $10-$16 a tournament... 36% ROI. I have been doing well in these over past few months, and built up a nice bankroll.

BUT!!! I got creamed at 50+5's. Is there a significant difference in players between the two? Has anyone had this experience? Any thoughts on your experience here would be appreciated.

thanx
sly

zaphod · #2 01-22-2005, 01:35 AM

How many tournamnents do you have at each level?

I have about 200 SNG's at the 30 level(actually quite a bit more but only 200 were i have logged my results), and are thinking about gradually moving up to the 50's.
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.
My plan is to play 1 30$ and 1 50$(i usually play 2 tables), and maybee play like 10 or 20 50 dollar tournaments and evaluate my results.

So what is your impression about the difference between these two tournaments?

slydeni · #3 01-22-2005, 01:43 AM

zaph-
sounds like we are on same path... I have about 200 as well and am consistantly winning 30+3's. I will tell you this... the 50+5 are much tougher. They are not unbeatable. And granted I only played 20 tournys at 50+5...but I could just tell right away they were tougher players. They are not so much overly creative players, just a lot of tighter ones. This led to not winning as much with my big hands, and not really being able to play in murky situations. It was tougher to extricate money from these players.

All in all...it seemed like a lot less fish. And I have grown dependant on these fish to pay some of my bills over past few months.

I am curious as to your - and other's - opinions of the 50+5's. Good luck...

sly

danng721 · #4 01-22-2005, 02:03 AM

I'm also having the same problem as you are, and the main reason is because of the deeper starting stacks. This results in a larger amount of players remaining when the blinds are really high, meaning we still have to play real poker at 100/200 and 200/400 instead of the all-in poker that we're used to at these levels.

Other than that, there are still alot of fish in the 50's... but there are also alot more good players as well.

slydeni · #5 01-22-2005, 02:49 AM

this is a good point i had not considered. the 1000 starting chips does make for a longer tourney,a nd more players in late. how to adjust? suggestions?

Pokerscott · #6 01-22-2005, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually 36% ROI with 200 SnGs is pretty darn significant. You are 90% confident you are at least a 10% ROI player or better based on the analysis posted here

Pokerscott

pshreck · #7 01-22-2005, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes i now 200 SNG's is not statistically significant, but i have the bankroll and want to give it a try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually 36% ROI with 200 SnGs is pretty darn significant. You are 90% confident you are at least a 10% ROI player or better based on the analysis posted here

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way those numbers are accurate.

200 is not enough SNG's to get a good idea about where you are long term. I think the biggest mistake young SNGers make is moving up levels after having what they consider to be semi-long term success at a lower level. 200 is really nothing. When you move up to almost double the buy in, if you go on a downstreak early you can almost blow your bankroll.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt a higher level, considering you may very well be giving up money by not playing there. The thing you have to realize, is the fact that you had a 36% ROI over 200 sngs (really insignificant), means zilch about where you are going to stand at the 50+5's.

Pokerscott · #8 01-22-2005, 02:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

The Yugoslavian · #9 01-22-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

He *obviously* took a ton of time to go through your posts and methodology about how you arrived at your ROI analysis. So, I'm sure it's more than merely 'feel,' [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

pshreck · #10 01-22-2005, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way those numbers are accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I'm 99% confident the numbers are accurate...you got any rationale behind your skepticism or just 'feel'?

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

2,500 recorded SNG's at a single level (20+2). ROI variations have swung 80% (anywhere from 50% ROI to -30% ROI) over 150 game sets. From my experience on these boards, we find people who come and post about their success over smaller sample sizes (50-500), and then don't neccesarily hear much more about it because their first swing (which most of the time was up) ended and it turns out they are close to break even than they first thought.

I think beating the 10% rake even at levels of 10+1 to 30+3 is extremely hard to do (mulitabling atleast), and doing so is often marginalized on this board. Almost any competent single table tournament player is perfectly capable of dominating over a small stretch of 200, but very few are able to do it on a long term basis.