Profitability of SnGs

[lorinda]

I was talking it terms of /100 hands because that is what the OP was using to compare a 10+1 SNG to a 0.50/1 limit ring game

The OP uses hourly rate and /100 to mean the same thing, it's quite a ridiculous post really.

Lori

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I think ring games would be easier to multitable. No shorthanded tables to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

it really depends on the player. in ring games, if you are playing full ring, 8 tabling is a joke. you can play super tight and grind out yer .75 bb/100 and have lowish variance and be happy. however, a lot of people think sngs are really easy to multitable. i dont have ANY trouble multitabling sngs, as just about every move is automatic. its one of the easiest forms of poker to play, and therefore can be heavily multitabled. in a ring game, you have to actually make decisions, and think on occasion about what the best play is. in a sng, its generally fairly easy. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
So I was thinking about it today, and this is what I realized. Say you have a ~20% ROI at the 10+1 level. This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit (which is very low stakes for limit, and an extremely low winrate for that level). Thus there's really no point playing low stakes SnGs compared to the profitability of limit ring.

Extrapolate this to the $55s. The profitability of them is about $12.50/hr (per table) with the same ROI assumed before. This is like playing $3/$6 limit for a profitability of just over 2 BB/100 - which I would think is much easier - limit games don't start getting tough until $5/$10. But then maybe SnGs don't start getting tough until $109?

I think I'm going to start playing some ring games for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

good luck having a 20% roi 8 tabling at anything above the 22s, and THATS a huge stretch.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
in a sng, its generally fairly easy. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it more difficult than craps, pai gow or blackjack?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
and i think this claim ranges from highly unlikely to impossible at any level below 215s and then it would just be very hard

[/ QUOTE ]

yea its POSSIBLE to do playing the 109s, but only then its doable running 12 continuously. at a 10% return. which is tough.

[ QUOTE ]
At $215's its DEFINITELY possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, yea. 8 tabling continuously you get in around 12-14 sngs per hour. its definitely possible. not many people can do it, but there are those that do. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
i make 200$/hr at SnG's on average... I don't really want to even consider the absurd amount of variance i'd have to deal with to make that in cash games

[/ QUOTE ]

not to sound like a spoil sport, but what is yer sample size, how many tables are you playing, and how many do you get in per day/week. very few people are able to maintain 200/hr. actually, VERY few people can. dont expect a sick tear over 1k sngs to go on forever. holla

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Please use hourly rates, I know you think it's clever to inflate numbers and use /100, but it really isn't.

A typical $11 SNG takes around 40 minutes, and a very good player will get an ROI of over 40%, which is significantly more than $6/hr

I don't know for sure, but I suspect a very good player simply cannot make $6 an hour at .5/1 LHE.

To those on 20% ROI in the $11s, yes you're doing fine, but you're probably pretty new.
It takes time to get better.

I've played .5/1 LHE for three years and I can't earn $3/hr.

Lori


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not using hourly rate because it is completely irrelevent when talking about the original post. The OP was comparing a 20% ROI SNGer and a 2.5BB/100 limit ring game player. He didn't even mention hourly rate anywhere in his post.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori




[/ QUOTE ]

OK i guess he does talk in terms of $/hour, but merely to extrapolate the data from SNGs to ring games. In his original post he uses 100 hands = 1 hour, and 1 SNG = approximately 50 minutes. This will give you 2.55BB/100 = $2.50/hour and a 20% ROI equal $2.50/hour. When you did you calculation to determine the hourly rate for a SNGer with a certain ROI you used 40 minutes per tournament. This change in time will actually could allow for nearly a 10% drop in ROI to obtain the same hourly rate. Using your number I can see why you would not agree with the OP. Regardless of that fact I still find it hard to believe that you consider 20% ROI player at the 10+1 to be clueless. Once again I don't have much experience at that level so maybe there acually are some people making a 40% return at that level, but I definitley haven't seen them. I just know that is impossible to maintain at the 50s and I can't believe that it would be much easier at the 10s. I guess I must be underestimating the level of stupidity of a typical 10+1 player.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is equivalent to $2.50/hr (or so) per table. Which is equivalent to a winrate of 2.5BB/100 playing .5/1 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the bit where he says 2.5/100 = 2.5/hr

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a limit ring game player, I always saw limit players talk about #BB/100 and #BB/hr and I made the incorrect assumption that they are the same thing.

I really appreciate all the posts in this thread and I am going to go through and run the numbers again (now that I have better numbers) and see what conclusions I come to.

Thanks for the clarifications all.