Did anyone ever figure out if 33s are more profitable than 55s?

[wulfheir]

Your ROI would have to drop >40% of it's current amount for it to be a bad move.
ie. 20% ROI @ 33 = 12% ROI @ 55
15% ROI @ 33 = 9% ROI @ 55

I don't know if that's what you mean or not.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ROI would have to drop >40% of it's current amount for it to be a bad move.
ie. 20% ROI @ 33 = 12% ROI @ 55
15% ROI @ 33 = 9% ROI @ 55

I don't know if that's what you mean or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed (I missed the earlier discussion) that it was a combination of the competition becoming more difficult AND the 1000 chip stacks making for a longer game that would make them less profitable.

[BadMongo]

That may be true for $/game, but we only really care about $/hour. Since 55s take longer on average than the 33s, your ROI at the 33s would not have to be THAT much higher than at the 55s for them to be as profitable.

I don't really have any reliable data to figure this out for sure, but I suspect that the 55s will still be more profitable despite the increase in average game length.

[Nicholasp27]

that's true for $/tourney, but if u are looking at profit/hour, then you need to account for tourney length...how long are people's 55s and 33s lasting?

also, if u can multi-table more 33s than 55s, then that has to figure into the equation

opp's being better, your playing scared, etc are already accounted for in the roi, so aren't factors in the equation

roi*#of tourneys/hour * buy-in = profit/hour

your buy-in increases from 33 to 55, but if roi or #tourneys/hour drops enough to offset that, then 33s are better