$20 SnG's

[vindikation]

I just increased my bankroll to manage handling the $20 SnG's ($630). I had a real phobia jumping up from the $5's to the $10 and crashed the first time I did (lost 5 straight). I then settled down, got over the initial "shock" and have done quite well the past 2 months playing the $10's.

After 2 months and around 100 $10's SnG's I have a 45% RIO & 45% ITM. I know this is a small sample size, but I only play for fun and don't have the time to play a lot of games.

There is a lot of talk about the $10, $50 & $200 SnG's, but not too much about the $20's. Any thoughts from people that have recently moved up from $10 to $20?

I found these 2 threads from the FAQ, but was curious if anyone had any new input on the subject, thanks:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...mp;o=&vc=1

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...mp;o=&vc=1

[syka16]

I had similar stats on 11s and was pretty lucky through my first 100 22s - ROI 39%. I'm still 2tabling 22s and am at 28% through 500. 22s still have very weak players and are beatable with basic ABC. There are some tighter players so try an occasional steal.

[goldseraph]

I play almost exclusively 10s and 20s, about 30 a week total. My ROI is about 20% on 10s, but its a whopping 42% on 20s. This is with about 400 total tourneys in my poker tracker. I find 20s are the perfect blend of inexperienced players but experienced enough not to be total wackos and end up taking you out. On 10s solid betting and raises are rarely respected, and that makes it tough for me. 20s are better in that aspect. Of the 30s and 50s I have played, it seemed like 30s were much tougher.. I have played some true maniacs on 50s. Good luck with things.

[Irieguy]

There are frequent questions about how big a difference there is between level "x" and level "y."

Every once in a while there will even be a post stating the opinion that a higher buy-in is easier than a lower buy-in. The only value of those posts must be to alert 2+2ers as to which posters can be ignored from that point forward. At least, that's the value I gain from those posts... it saves me time reading threads when I can completely skip replies knowing that it's impossible for them to have any worthwhile content.

Here's the fact: $22 SNGs are in between $11's and $33's in terms of difficulty and profitability.

SNG's become less profitable and more difficult as you move up in buy-ins. It should be quite clear as to why that is. It may not be a completely linear relationship quantitatively (I'm not sure it isn't, though); because of all of the dynamic variables involved, but the qualitative relationship is steadfast.

This fact can be "proven" by a number of different methods. Economics supplies us with the best theoretical proof... but that's academic because this forum has supplied us all with abundant empirical proof.

There's a lot of noise in data collection, and perhaps the most significant purpose this forum serves is to broadcast the signal loud and clear.

All you have to do is ask, "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" (though personally, I would ask Eastbay or Aleo.)

Irieguy

[goldseraph]

Let me add if you're making over 40% ROI on 10s after a few hundred, maybe you should try multitabling them instead of moving up in buyin.

[goldseraph]

[ QUOTE ]
Every once in a while there will even be a post stating the opinion that a higher buy-in is easier than a lower buy-in. The only value of those posts must be to alert 2+2ers as to which posters can be ignored from that point forward. At least, that's the value I gain from those posts... it saves me time reading threads when I can completely skip replies knowing that it's impossible for them to have any worthwhile content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the slam... but I have to disagree. Perhaps it is a linear model for you and your style of play, and perhaps even the majority. I undoubtedly do better at 20s than 10s or 5s though. Many poker players find themselves doing more poorly against weak competition than against other good players. Feel free to immediately ignore all of my worthless posts in the future though, I will sleep fine at night.

[lorinda]

Here comes another slap I'm afraid.

Although your sample is small, I'll go with the belief that you are doing better in 20s than 10s.*

This should alert you to the fact that there is a major hole in your understanding of how to beat bad players.
If this hole is allowed to go unfilled, you will suffer at higher levels when people will be strong enough to take advantage of this leak.

*Edit: Otherwise this advice is worthless anyway

Lori

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the slam... but I have to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted before I saw your reply, so I hope you understand that it wasn't a personal attack. I also hope that you can appreciate the fact that sometimes I try to be funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I undoubtedly do better at 20s than 10s or 5s though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you have no doubt at all. I am equally sure that your skewed results are just noise.

[ QUOTE ]

Many poker players find themselves doing more poorly against weak competition than against other good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nonsense. Oft-stated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Zero-sum game theory makes this impossible, and I have explained this at length in prior posts if you are interested.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to immediately ignore all of my worthless posts in the future though, I will sleep fine at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not a personal attack. If I had seen your post first, I would have made a different joke. But I think it's more important to offer sound direction than to spare somebody's feelings through acquiession. (I don't think that's a real word.)

You are really wrong. I promise.

Irieguy

[goldseraph]

Ok I thought you were personally going after me, no offense taken. That said, I find it absurd that you consider your theories to be infallible. Again, I am not challenging that in a statistical model, average players generally would perform worse as the buy in increases. However, you seem to be saying that nobody can possibly defy this model.


About being worse against bad players:

[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. Oft-stated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Zero-sum game theory makes this impossible, and I have explained this at length in prior posts if you are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is oft-stated and testified to by poker pros and amateurs alike, how is it that you can deny it? Whether it is psychological or the good player's fault, that doesn't change that the phenomena exists.

[lorinda]

that doesn't change that the phenomena exists.

You are not distinguishing between good and tight.

By definition, if the players are better, other players will do less well against them.

If the players are tighter, then it is possible that you have a strategy that is flawed against the looser players.

As I mentioned in the previous post, if you start using the "tight player" strategy in the higher limits, you will be found out and the better players will mimic the play of the "bad" players that you can't beat.

If you don't ever intend to improve or move up, and the sample is good for another 1000 or so SNGs, then fine, but if you intend to do this all the way to the top then you should go to the 10s again at some point and work out what you are doing wrong.

Lori