Part-time SnG grinders

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I placed first more than any other place but of course I didn't win everytime I was ITM. I will check again but it should not be way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, something is way off. At 26% ITM, the absolute maximum ROI is 18%. The advice you're getting on this forum is useless without good numbers. Specifically, how many tournaments have you played, and how many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes do you have?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I seriously question this form of online play. If you want to play part-time, (in my opinion) it's much more profitable and beneficial to increase your bankroll to the point where playing one $100 game a night is enough. A few reasons:

1. 4-tabling is fast and fun, but you are almost guaranteed to not play your *best* poker at any of those tables. If you can get by with playing pretty well, then more power to you, but most people who make a profit from cards do so because they are playing their best, all the time.
2. How's your mental health holding up? If you suffer a bad beat at one table, how does that affect your play at the other three? What happens when you get down to the bubble at all four tables? Do you get flustered, hasty even? Be honest with yourself here... it certainly happens to me, and that's why I avoid multi-tabling.
3. It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391. When comparing the two, you wind up with 3.5454 vs. 3.587 ROI (in favor of the 100 game). You're also more likely to play better at the single table, and it's also easier to get one 1st than four 1sts at the same time.

Of course this is just a suggestion; some people can handle multible tables really well, but they usually make their living doing it.

I started with $50 at the $10 tables, and playing one a night (at most, sometimes I'm not in the mood to play poker some evenings), I'm now up to 1.65k in 6 months. My ITM is right around 70% at the $50's right now and I couldn't be happier with that.

In summary, when it comes to poker, quality, not quantity, is the best way to go. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

DrJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, this is pretty terrible advice.

#1: It's pretty simple to play your best when 4-tabling. I find it harder to play my best when 1-tabling. Harder to concentrate when you are bored out of your mind.
#2: Bad beats are much easier to take when you are 4-tabling as opposed to 1-tabling.
#3: The difference in ROI that you outline is SOLELY due to the difference in rake, not the difference in 1-tabling vs. 4-tabling. By your argument, he should be playing the $200, not the $20s.


Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ITM is around 70% playing the $50s? Wow, that's rather hard to believe. How many have you played?

[/ QUOTE ]

ha didnt see that, must be pretty damn small since hes only made 1600 on all levels

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]

First, the $109s are MUCH tougher than the 22s, so your ITM and ROI will go down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... I have actually found the opposite to be true. My ITM and ROI have consistently increased as I moved from the 5's up to the 50's, with the biggest immediate increase taking place between 22 and 33. I can explain this with a wonderful side story:
Poker buddy of mine quit college to play online. He still dominates the 20/40 tables at a particular site (will maintain his anonymity). Him and I were once invited to a professor's house for thanksgiving, where we proceeded to play penny-poker with the professor and his 4 year old son. I held my own, but my buddy got whipped.... the variance, the sheer randomness of the 4yo's play combined with some luck would have been enough to bust my pal even if we were at a 10k buyin.
I see plenty more 4yo's at the 10 tables than I do at the 50's.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, playing more tournaments reduces variance and evens out the swings, allowing a more consistent profit. If you play one tournament a night, and lose 14 in a row, that's a pretty crappy 2 weeks. The more tournaments you play, the better the chance of approximating your average return.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now this, I agree with. I simply find that playing *more* tournaments (at the same time, or one after another in succession with few breaks) also reduces your over all level of play in any given hand, so it's kind of like an economics problem... a lot at 90% skill, or a few at 100% skill? However, I think most 2+2ers would agree that, if they are playing their best, 14 losses in a row is an extremely unlikely event. In fact, 5 losses in a row should be a fairly rare occurance.

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes good mathematical sense. If you play four 20 tables, you're spending 88, with a potential return of 400, so 400 - 88 = 312. If you play one 100 table, you spend 109, with a potential return of 500, so 500 - 109 = 391...

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Your potential return is always 50/30/20% (in a 10-handed SNG) regardless of the buyin. Of course you can make more money in dollar terms at a $109 then 4 $22s, but that's only because you're wagering more money to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to clarify: your MAXIMUM return from playing 4 $20 tables is 312 (400 - 88), while your MAXIMUM return from playing 1 $100 table is $391 (500 - 109). Therefore, you've got an ROI of 312/88 = 3.5454 for the 4-tabling, and an ROI of 3.587 for the $100 game. If you play flawlessly, your return of investment is higher for the $100 game, and ROI has nothing to do with initial wager.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you absoultely can't handle multi-tabling, it's better to multitable the lower buyins than play fewer high-buyin tournaments, especially something as few as 1 a night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'll have to go back to the 20's so I can catch these guys when they're multitabling... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

DrJ

[Nato76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROI=36%
ITM=26% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Wondering if $500 a week is possible playing part time $22 Sng's if of course I play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should check over your numbers again. If you were winning all of your ITM (26%) you still couldn't have a 36% ROI, it's mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I placed first more than any other place but of course I didn't win everytime I was ITM. I will check again but it should not be way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, something is way off. At 26% ITM, the absolute maximum ROI is 18%. The advice you're getting on this forum is useless without good numbers. Specifically, how many tournaments have you played, and how many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this and that is why I am going to post my exact numbers when I get off of work. My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[Zoelef]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this and that is why I am going to post my exact numbers when I get off of work. My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming a consistent 25% rakeback and 20% ROI on the $22's, you effectively "make" $4.50/tourney.
To make $500/week, you have to play 500/4.5 = ~112 SnG's.
4-tabling one set per hour means you have to play ~28 hours to make $500/week. So, I would say it's attainable within 25 hours, but not every week.

[15-25]*$4.50*4 = 270-450/week, not counting statisical deviation and whatnot.

Edit: I'm currently 3-tabling the Bodog 5.50s to the tune of 39% ITM/14% ROI/64% ITM from bubble. I should move up but I keep getting sucked out/forced to push on bubbles with a short stack. :\

Edit 2: My math sucks. holla.

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
My real question was if it was possible to make $500 a week 4 tabling the $22's. I am going to double check my stats and post them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you play ~100 tournies -- at least 16 to 20 hours -- per week?
If so, a 20% ROI makes your goal attainable.

So yes, it is possible, depending how good you are and if you have the time.

[Cunning Linguist]

[ QUOTE ]
To make $500/week, you have to play 500/2.5 = 200 SnG's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would check those numbers again.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming a consistent 25% rakeback and 20% ROI on the $22's, you effectively "make" $2.50/tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

With those assumptions, he'd be making $4.90 / tourney, not $2.50

[drjnightowl]

[ QUOTE ]
very possible, if your getting in 100 tables a week you would need a roi around 20% to make $500

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems quite wrong to me. ROI of 20% implies an ITM of 28%, but let's just make it 32% for fun purposes.

100 $20 games = $2200 buy in
average return for ITM finish = 66.66667 (100 + 60 + 40)/3
average return times ITM's: 66.66667 * 32 = 2133.3333

Total profit = 2133.3333 - 2200 = -66.6666.

So, in summary, an ITM rate of 32% actually produces a loss of 67 bucks for this number and this type of game.

Am I flawed in my correlation of ROI and ITM here?

drJ