Another SNG Theory Question

[La Brujita]

A Party 100+9 starts with ten players 1000 chips and blinds increasing every ten hands. Now many of us argue what the upper bounds of ROI and ITM are, but many of us have opinions that are pretty close (perhaps 50% ITM and 40% ROI are close to the bounds-ROI I don't know since I don't really track it as closely).

What would the two upper bounds be in the following cases (feel free to answer all or any):

1. Blinds increase every 20 hands

2. You start with 2000 chips

3. Blinds increase every five hands (a bit odd I know)

4. You start with 500 chips

5. Blinds increase every 100 hands

6. You start with 10,000 chips.

I really don't have a great guess as to the answer to these questions. If you desire, please also feel free to guess average time for each (lets say 45 minutes ballpark average for standard). I ask partly out of pure curiousity, partly in response to a recent thread about someone's friend trying to win 1/3 and partly to try and figure out what would be the ideal blind structure to make money on these.

Regards

[La Brujita]

This is a small editorial comment: does anyone else feel like nobody ever responds when they post? Its not a big deal I think many feel that way but I feel a bit naked with no reponses.

My uneducated guess is 60% itm for case 2 and 75% itm for case 6.

[Sam T.]

I, for one, don't really know the game well enough to comment. For the same reason, I could not figure out what question you were trying to answer.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
A Party 100+9 starts with ten players 1000 chips and blinds increasing every ten hands. Now many of us argue what the upper bounds of ROI and ITM are, but many of us have opinions that are pretty close (perhaps 50% ITM and 40% ROI are close to the bounds-ROI I don't know since I don't really track it as closely).

What would the two upper bounds be in the following cases (feel free to answer all or any):

1. Blinds increase every 20 hands

2. You start with 2000 chips

3. Blinds increase every five hands (a bit odd I know)

4. You start with 500 chips

5. Blinds increase every 100 hands

6. You start with 10,000 chips.

I really don't have a great guess as to the answer to these questions. If you desire, please also feel free to guess average time for each (lets say 45 minutes ballpark average for standard). I ask partly out of pure curiousity, partly in response to a recent thread about someone's friend trying to win 1/3 and partly to try and figure out what would be the ideal blind structure to make money on these.

Regards

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only just seen this so it must have been bumped down pretty quickly. Here's my guesses.

1. Blinds increase every 20 hands
Marginal improvement on the existing structure - 10 extra hands is nice but is still probably quicker than the Stars time-based structure.

2. You start with 2000 chips
5-10% improvement in ROI and ITM as better players have more time to use their advantage. I saw a noticeable improvement in results moving up from 30's to 50's with only a 200 chip increase.

3. Blinds increase every five hands (a bit odd I know)
Crapshoot city - in theory certain players could be seriously disadvantaged by always paying higher blinds. The tournament basically boils down to seat position relative to the blinds, how quickly you find a hand and when and where players are knocked out.

There's probably no guarantee you could be a regular winner in this game.

4. You start with 500 chips
Another crapshoot - not much time to wait for premium hands so very dependent on your early cards.

5. Blinds increase every 100 hands
Big (10%+) improvement in ITM and ROI but a deterioration in hourly rate as the games would take much longer with an 'average' mix of players.

6. You start with 10,000 chips.
As for number 5, improved ROI and ITM but a deteriorating hourly rate.

T10,000 is probably too many chips for Party's structures but a figure such as T5,000 would be interesting with the current blind levels. Doubling through bad players would give you a significant chip advantage with more time to protect it before the blinds became significant. I think that would probably be somewhere close to the ideal as the games would still be over relatively quickly and most typical players wouldn't appreciate the more subtle plays (more potential to play draws for a smaller percentage of your chips) which the extra chips would allow.

Sheriff

[PrayingMantis]

LB,

I think the problem with the question you're asking, which is very interesting in itself, is that it has a lot to do with other variables. For instance, we know that ROI and ITM change rather significantly between buy-in's. Generally, my opinion is that you'll get about the same ROI if you're playing against the same type of opposition, on the same buy-in, even if you change some of the elements (blinds, structure, etc.), as long as it doesn't become a complete crap-shoot (i.e, blinds at 1/2 your stack at the first round, and so on).

For instance:

[ QUOTE ]
3. Blinds increase every five hands (a bit odd I know)


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't play the turbos on Stars, but the blinds go up every five minutes. In the lower buy-ins ($15-$27), this is enough for about 8 hands, say (early rounds). But in the higher ones, where I usualy play ($60-$114), it is very common for a level to last 5 hands, like in your question, sometimes even less (3 hands for a level is not unusual), because people think a lot. But this changes dramatically when the game becomes short handed, then you can play much much more hands per level, if you play fast enough. However, I don't think it changes my ROI. Actually, my ROI at the turbo's is fairly higher than when I played the regular games on stars: but that has to do with my improvement and adjustment too, over the time.

So, I believe that a player that is able to adjust to different conditions (short stacks/deep stacks, etc), will always have a significant edge in the long-run.

With very short stacks, however, the long run is "longer", and there will be much more variance. It's hard to tell how exactly the ROI is affected by this.

Do I make sense here?

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, don't really know the game well enough to comment. For the same reason, I could not figure out what question you were trying to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was really trying to answer a couple of things. First, I was truly curious where the best hourly rate could be earned.

Second and more importantly I am on a constant struggle to find what format best earns me money, ring games sit and gos or multitable tournaments. I think I know the answer (limit ring games) but I am not sure I have the heart to play them. I am currently trying multis to see how they work out.

I played sit and gos for a long while and did pretty well but not as well as others partly because I had a terrible three or four month run of bad beats. I feel like the blind structure has a lot to do with it as well and I think this discussion might answer indirectly questions of whether I was not as good as others because of a lack of bubble aggression or just bad luck. I did fine mind you but I think ROI was somewhere in the 20s even in 30 and 50 games (not really sure but just and educated guess-I never calculated it).

I guess the third thing I am trying to figure out is if my skill set does or does not fit well with the blind structure of sit and gos.

Not sure if any of that makes much sense.

[Sam T.]

Brujita,

That does make sense, I just didn't see the big picture - right now I'm a small picture kind of player [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. Good luck finding your niche, but I hope you will continue to post here. I've learned a lot from you!

Sam

[eastbay]

Boiling down the questions into what I think you are trying to get at: How fast/slow a structure do you need before the tension between edge and pace of play is in equilibrium, where a good player can maximize his hourly rate?

It's a great question, but one that is very difficult to say anything about in a definitive way, IMO. I think the best you can do is to compare common structures on which players have accumulated significant experience to hazard a guess at the answer.

eastbay

[La Brujita]

Sherrif,

Thanks for the response. It is interesting that you and I came up with about the same number for category 2.

I would think case 5 would have a higher ITM than 10% but not really sure.

3 and 4 sound crazy I know but I have played exactly one B&M satellite one tabler and it was a bit like this format. Editorially, it was only a few weeks ago and I felt like I had a sign I had really made it as a decent poker player. I picked up AQo in the SB and pushed all in for 7x BB. BB called with 88 and the cards came QQxx8. I didn't bat an eye or even flinch, I just said gg and walked away. This was right on the heels of getting knocked out of a $200 multi without winning a hand. I felt like I had good emotional control.

5,000 is probably a better choice than 10,000. The reason I picked a big number is I am not sure may players would adjust to deeper money and also because I am a bit frustrated with shallow money formats, which take much of the post flop play out of tourneys. I love multis with slow blind increases for that reason.

Eastbay,

You phrased the question perfectly. I figured if anyone could answer it would be you or Bozeman.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, my opinion is that you'll get about the same ROI if you're playing against the same type of opposition, on the same buy-in, even if you change some of the elements (blinds, structure, etc.), as long as it doesn't become a complete crap-shoot (i.e, blinds at 1/2 your stack at the first round, and so on).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a very interesting point because it recalls a paragraph in Theory of Poker where Sklansky talks about the interesting fact very good players and very bad players like unusual games ie games with wild cards. Bad players like it because it adds excitement and more "luck" to the game and good players like it because they can more quickly adjust to the changing variables.

That being said wouldn't a good player generally want deeper money and more play in a tournament? I always thought of sit and gos as a fight to position yourself in the top five or six and then a bit of a craphoot. Heck I don't think Howard Lederer would have much of an edge over me heads up with huge blinds in these tourneys and he is The Rock and I am Frankie Muniz if you get me.

I played one $60 turbo and just hated the blinds. One excellent poster tricked me into playing so he could take my money-you know who you are [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
With very short stacks, however, the long run is "longer", and there will be much more variance. It's hard to tell how exactly the ROI is affected by this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you said makes sense although I am struggling a bit with this statement. Is it the variance that is affected by short stacks or is it ROI? I guess my thinking is the shorter the stack sizes compared to the blinds the more luck is involved and the lower your ROI must be?