|
|
#31
05-12-2005, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ring games or sit n go
"What Im trying to figure out is if SnG's are more profitable that NL, or even limit. "
Ultimately? No I don't think SNGs will have the earning potential of limit/NL ring. Simply because you can play for MUCH higher stakes than sngs. Steps have the highest, but I'm not sure they play reguarly enough (ie you can 4+ table them??). However, sngs will earn more for a specific bankroll and have lower variance. You can't compare a 30/60 player to a $215 player since the ring player will need double the BR of the snger. "Ive been thinking a lot about variance, and in limit, if you are a winning player, I think it is definatly lower than SnG's" Wrong. "but you make more in Limit or No limit in lower buyins" Wrong again. 8 tabling the $22s requires less than 1k but will earn a decent player over $50US an hr. I doubt 1/2 LHE or 50NL will do that. 
|
|
#32
05-12-2005, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree, a person with high levels of intelligence could easily be a winning player within months. [/ QUOTE ] It is one thing to understand what to do, it is another to churn out profit several hours a day regularly. The focus and approach you need to be a winning player is not negligible.
|
|
#33
05-12-2005, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound." I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income. *Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point. [/ QUOTE ] I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit.
|
|
#34
05-12-2005, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound." I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income. *Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point. [/ QUOTE ] I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit. [/ QUOTE ] ...relying on it for income, when you have never played before? Hmm...
|
|
#36
05-12-2005, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound." I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income. *Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point. [/ QUOTE ] I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit. [/ QUOTE ] Not bullshit. You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective.
|
|
#37
05-12-2005, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound." I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income. *Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point. [/ QUOTE ] I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit. [/ QUOTE ] Not bullshit. You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that after 50 SNG i belive very few would be displined enough to play thight in the begining of an SNG. The thinking of an new SNG player, getting KQ off UTG hand 8 off and SNG: "I have got crap so far. Here is KQ off! Lets see if i can get something going with this monster!" 30 sec later they join another SNG.
|
|
#38
05-12-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ring games or sit n go
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound." I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income. *Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point. [/ QUOTE ] I just saw the claim of being a winning 33er 4 tabling within 50 SNGs. Bullshit. [/ QUOTE ] Not bullshit. You don't need a 2000 SNG sample to know you're a winning player. If you play according to the (good) advice on these boards you are effectively drawing on the samples of all winning 2+2ers. Your ROI is going to be lower, but not by a huge amount. There just aren't enough "grey" decisions in SNGs, and even the ones that do exist aren't all that material from an ROI perspective. [/ QUOTE ] You don't really know if you've understood and are applying concepts with a great deal of reliability by the time 50 tourneys have been played or if you've just been on the positive side of variance. It's the many games you play AFTER those 50 that will start telling you a lot more about how sharp you really might be vs. how sharp you just think you are. People are probably not doing themselves any favors by thinking that after 50 games, their losing streak reflects their long-term ROI or their winning streak reflects their longer-term ROI. That 500 number that people use when talking about beginning to get a handle on what your profitability at a level is really like is just an arbitrary number, but it's sure a lot better than 50 is. 50 is just eight hours of play for a four-tabler. It's stretching it a lot to say poker will tell you all that much after only 8 hours except what those 8 hours were like.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
