Are you sure about ROI

[Sidekick]

[ QUOTE ]
This magic number of ~22% ROI, does it take into account the quality of competition? Surely it's easier to win at a 5 or 10 buck table as opposed to a 100 table. Wouldn't this perhaps lead to a higher percentage?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the lower levels a much higher ITM% and ROI are quite sustainable. At the $10 level an ITM of 45%+ and ROI of 30%+ are quite possible over the long run.

The problem is that the competition gets a bit tougher at each level as you move up. So that by the time you reach the $215 level that a ROI of 20% is extremely good.

Pick the best player in the world (doesn't matter who you think it is) and drop him/her into 1000+ SNGs at the $10+$1 tables with half the table being fish and a couple of people that are actually learning and improving. The pro will crush the games easily.

Now, each time you move up a level add 1 more highly skilled player to the 9 or 10 person table at which he plays and reduce the number of players that are going to make stupid plays.

By the time you reach the $215 level you then have 6 highly skilled players at the table and 2-3 more that are very competent players and maybe 1 person that will play stupidly (just because they are rich and feel like seeing some action or whatever). When there is this level of competition it is extremely difficult to finish 1st and 2nd a sufficient percentage of the time in order to sustain a high ROI (25%+).

Hope this answers your question.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%.

[/ QUOTE ]
No sarcasm here - but I think you severely misjudge the huge difference between 33% and 50% ITM.

For every 100 tournaments you'd need to be ITM 17 more times than the "average" player. At the high limits, where the average player is usually very good, that's pretty much impossible over the long term.

I may be wrong on this, but I think a lot of the top high-limit SNG'ers make their ROI by a higher percentage of 1st and 2nd place finishes compared to 3rds. In other words, their ITM might only be a little bit higher than average, but those finishes are disproportionately weighted to 1st and 2nd.

[El Maximo]

When you start asking questions about the sustainability of high ROI at the 109s or 215s, I think you should consider moving down a level or 2. Its not a question of skill but more a question of psychology. You may have trouble enduring the bad streaks that are inevitable. How are you going to feel losing 10, 20, or more buyins in a row at the 109s if you have unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM. I had the same unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM when I was running hot during my first 350 SnGs. Than the next 200 brought me back to reality. The veterans on this site tell it to you straight. If they say something is unsustainable than it is.

[The once and future king]

1. What makes you think 22% is a magic number.

2. 40% is sustainable at lower limits.

3. If you maintian a positive ROI then of course just playing SnGs is profitable in the long term.

[FishBurger]

Here's what happens when you are running good:

You're shortstacked and it's folded around to you in the SB. You have KK and minraise. BB goes allin with AK. You double up and end up winning the tourney. You feel like a genius.

Here's what happens when you're running bad:

You're in the SB with KQs. CO raises to 2.5BB. You correctly interpret this as a steal attempt and move allin. CO flips over Q-10, two tens fall on the flop, CO takes the 2000 pot, and you get knocked out in fifth.

---

Both of these scenarios happened to me in recent respective good and bad runs. I bet if you go back and look at your hands you will see much more of the first scenario and much less of the second. Your current high ROI is probably due to your getting good hands which aren't getting sucked out on.

[rwanger]

To answer the Q above...I'm talking 10 person satelites.

Forgetting odds and data people have collected and whatnot, is 40% in the money sustainable? And if it is, could you imagine having placed in the money ONCE more in your previous 20 tournaments (you would just have to have played 1 hand differently). Then you'd be up to 45%.

And don't anyone give the example of that 1 more in 20 taking you all the way up to 100% in the money, I already thought of that.

[Grivan]

The problem is even if you play a SNG perfectly you are not required to cash. At the higher levels you might have 4 people at the table who are able to play a very near perfect SNG, and 6 people who are just slightly worse.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And if it is, could you imagine having placed in the money ONCE more in your previous 20 tournaments (you would just have to have played 1 hand differently). Then you'd be up to 45%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's like saying batting .300 in baseball should be easy. Over the course of an entire season, the difference between a .300 and .270 hitter is something like 15 hits. That's about 1 extra hit every 2 weeks. Doesn't sound like much, but why can some guys do it every year while others can't? Any scrub hitter can bat .300 for a week or even a month but only the best can do it all year, every year.

I think the problem with your argument is that you are discounting the abilites of the other players at the table. At the highest levels most of the players are very good and cashing an extra 1 in 20 is a lot easier said than done.

[Voltron87]

I went through a streak like yours last week at the 33s. I was absolutely spittting hot fire. I was playing great, and hand no bad beats at bad times. When I finally came off it, I realized that I had gotten really lucky. Not in that I was pushing with 55 and busting AA, or winning races while I was dominated, but because I was winning a lot of races where I had a small advantage. Example: I would get to 3 way play as the big stack, and put someone all in with A5. They would call with KQ, and I was winning those races a disproportionate amount of the time (and a lot of the time these were for 5-6000 chips) and I would win the tournament easily after that. Was I getting my money in with the best hand? Yes. Was I getting lucky? Yes, because my small advantages were holding up in this big pots.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what happens when you are running good:

You're shortstacked and it's folded around to you in the SB. You have KK and minraise. BB goes allin with AK. You double up and end up winning the tourney. You feel like a genius.

Here's what happens when you're running bad:

You're in the SB with KQs. CO raises to 2.5BB. You correctly interpret this as a steal attempt and move allin. CO flips over Q-10, two tens fall on the flop, CO takes the 2000 pot, and you get knocked out in fifth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so true, and it's the beauty of poker. People get a little lucky and chalk it up to skill. People play poorly and chalk it up to bad luck.

For the good players, it makes for nice, consistent bleeding of the bad players. For poor players, it provides the perfect excuse and the incentive to keep coming back while losing money to the sharks slowly over the long run.

My old roomate was a horrible player. We used to run small, friendly live games with 6 people, and after about 20 of these games, my roomate had yet to win any money. None of us were very good, it's just that he was absolutely abysmal. He was just about to quit playing, as he had finally recognized that he was a loser. I recommended a couple sklansky books to him, explained position, and told him that he really has to start folding hands like 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] preflop, even if they are sooted. Anyway, contrairy to my advice, he purchased the book "Poker For Dummies", which truly isn't good for anything but a laugh (they even have a section of what snacks you should bring if your friend is hosting a home game - no shite). The next poker night, he proceeded to have the most fortunate luck I've ever seen. He got quads 3 times, caught to many boats to count, and whenever someone had a legitamite hand, he'd always have them beat. Anyway, that night was enough to keep him coming back for more punishment, convinced that all his subsequent losses were due to bad luck, and not flawed play.

Anyway, I'm certainly not comparing you to such a neophite as the guy I was just describing. All I'm saying is don't let a run of good luck make you think that you're better than you really are. Play 1000 SNGs at $200, and if you're still anywhere near 50% ROI, write a book cause I'd buy it in a second!

ss