Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > One-table Tournaments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-18-2005, 02:38 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

I play limit ring games, at the moment the .50/1.00 partypoker 6max tables. As this is the lowest limit partypoker tables, with the loosest worst players, making 6BB per 100 hands, or $4.50 per hour for one table, is doable for a good player. The generally accepted wisdom is that one needs a 300 big bet bankroll at limit, so a $300 bankroll.

I've read that at the lowest limit STT's, a 30% ROI would be reasonable for a good player, and that a STT might take an hour. Given this, the lowest level STT's at partypoker would make much less than the lowest level limit ring games. $5+1 X 30% = $1.80 per hour. $10+1 X 30% = $3.30 per hour. $22 X 30% = $6.60 per hour, if one could really make 30% on the $22's, and from what I've read most here are not making that much.

Also, 50 buyins is the recommended bankroll, meaning you'd have to have an $1100 bankroll and play the $22's to likely make the same amount one could make at partypoker's lowest limit 6max ring games, .50/1.00.

Add to this the fact that at partypoker and skins, STT's don't count towards bonuses, and it seems like ring games are a lot more profitable at the lowest levels than STT's.

Am I wrong here?

(Of course, 6BB/100 hands is only doable at the very lowest level loosest tables, move up even slightly and you're hoping for 3bb/100 instead, move up higher and you're hoping for 2)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-18-2005, 03:01 AM
tjh tjh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 176
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

You may be right but I am in no mood to check the math.

If some of the regulars chose to respond to this you might find that you get some responses that echo the following sentiments.

Ring games are boring.
Limit ring games are extremely boring.
Micro stakes limit ring games are sheer torture.

Build a bankroll there ? Sure no problem.
Work off a bonus or two ? Indeed.
Play them for a living ? Well you have to get some enjoyment from your work so maybe not.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

SNG's provide the following non-monetary rewards.
<ul type="square">[*]A little bit of drama[*]A little bit of variety[*]Increments of small set amount of risk for decent rewards[*]A scenario that is challenging and has a set time limit, well more or less it has a beginning an end, ring games are eternal and monotonous[/list]
There is a perception that SNG's offer less variance. I have not seen the numbers to support this but I do not doubt that it is true.

So SNG is at least more fun. Also as a relatively narrow slice of the poker world it may be harder for the fish to find good advice on SNG play. Most books focus on Limit or else NL multi tournies. So the expertise for SNG is something you have to search 2+2 for. The expert advice for Limit is available at every bookstore in the country.

Just my opinion. I keep trying to switch to NL ring but the majority of my profit continues to come from local tournies and SNG.

--
tjh
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-18-2005, 03:42 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

Yeah, the reason I looked into this is that the limit ring games I've been playing are a bit of a grind. I've tried some freeroll tournaments, and while they have too many players chasing too little money, I found them to be much more fun than the ring games I'm used to.

Stepping down to making $1.50 an hour playing the lowest level STT's, though, which is where I would presumably have to start, doesn't sound so appealing. I mean, I've done better than $1.50 an hour playing frerolls.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-18-2005, 03:57 AM
EnderFFX EnderFFX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

For me the appeal of SnG isn't from playing 1 table it is from playing 8-12 tables at a time. Can this be done on limit ring? I don't know but let me throw facts at you.

- SnG at the lowest levels can be broken down into formulatic playing aka, once you get used to the system, there is a straight forward method of playing which guarantees you money in the long run. (provided you playing the levels appropriately, don't tilt, and truly know what you are doing)

- Tilting on a tournament will cost you at the most X dollars. (cost of the tournament you are playing) The funny thing is, tilting the correct way can almost be appropriate play. If a player tilts in the larger blinds, and just starts pushing left and right, he might find himself winning the tournament. Ring play, however, is less forgiving on tilting.

- Tight players don't clear bonuses on sng. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] So when a bonus hits, the play won't dramatically change.

- A majority of people playing low limit SnG play them completely wrong. They play loose early, tight later, when it is actually the opposite.

- 8 tabling, 30-50 buyins is good for low lmit SnG. 8 tabling $0.50 - $1 with only a $300 bankroll. 8 tables with $300 = $37.50 per table. If you play with $37.50 per table, during some sessions, a table or two will go broke.

- SnG, on average probably take 40-45 minutes. If you bust 10th, you are playing for 10-15 minutes, and some wins take only 40 minutes. Whenever I run an 8 game set, I normally finish the last game after 45 minutes. Once in a while they run long.

I'm not disagreeing with your calculations, or points, just bringing you some SnG facts.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-18-2005, 04:11 AM
chisness chisness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 309
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

sngs are not exactly very fun either

from my experience, poker can either be played for pleasure where it's fun or more as a job where regardless of type of game played, if you're doing it the right way (lots of tables, etc.) it's going to be profitable, but not overly enjoyable (compared to most "games," yet still far better than a typical job)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-18-2005, 04:16 AM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

as far as sngs vs low limit 6 max goes.. how many tables of 6 max can you play? MAYBE 8, and that would be disgustingly fast. ive done 8 5-10 6max games before, and had a tough tough time with it. i can 20 table 22s without near as much thought or trouble.

as far as bankroll goes.. anybody playing the 22s on 1100 should move up, unless they are retarded like me and love to play 3209580923923 tables with no variance and no stress.

again, i know you said the whole 6bb/100 only doable at x level, but even at .5-1 6 max, if you are 4 tabling, which is still quite a bit too fast for most people, you will NOT get over 4bb/100. you just wont, i dont care who you are.

dont get me wrong, as of late i have been playing more and more cash games, and havent really been running well, but have been wondering why i EVER stopped playing them. then i realized how pissed i get when people call me down after potting the whole way facing a 3 flush board and 4 overcards. oh wait, thats me steaming. ZING. thats why.

in sngs, if you are steaming, you might make a SLIGHTLY incorrect -ev shove, maybe to the tune of -.5% or something. whatever, it happens. if i go on tilt in sngs, my results simply wont change. when im playing massive tables, i play exactly the same no matter what, and all the pushes and calls i could program my calculator to make.

in ring games, you have to think. a lot. you ahve to use yer brain, adjust to different situations, and think a lot on the fly. this limits the number of tables you can play, and also causes more strain on the ol noggin, which causes sessions to be generally shorter.

as far as playing for the future, and higher stakes stuff, cash games are bar none the best way to go, which is why im gradually going in that direction. the ol law of diminishing returns is much kinder to us poker players in deep stack ring games, as you can only do so much with those quickly escalating blinds.

so which side of the argument am i taking? well, i definitely think playing sngs up to the 55 level or so is wayyyyy more profitable than similar bankroll required ring games, as its so simple to just add more and more tables and go pushbot mode. after that though.. the idiots in cash games, especially NL cash games.. make it worth learning over sngs. (that was long.. hope its useful, i dont generally make long posts) holla
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-18-2005, 04:27 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-18-2005, 04:28 AM
Mr_J Mr_J is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 639
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

"so a $300 bankroll."

Off that same $300 BR you could 8table $11s for 20% ROI and make $27/hr.

8tabling sngs is probally no worse than 4tabling 6max in terms of effort.

FWIW I'm now playing ring myself, not because of hourly rates, just because I like the change of pace.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-18-2005, 05:07 AM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter

[/ QUOTE ]

ok im sorry, i should elaborate. no limit game on PARTY can be beat for 6bb/100, simply due to the rake. holla
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-18-2005, 05:33 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Low limit ring games more profitable than STTs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
making 6BB per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahahah ahaahahhahahahahahhahahahaha. gasp. hahahahahhahaahhahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah.
gasp. its simply not possible to get 6bb/100 no matter what the stakes are. thats just disgustingly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 22k hands on stars .25/.5 I had 6.8 BB/100 with probably some fairly poor play mixed in there. I have no idea why I played so many hands there, and I'm sure I was on a heater, and the rake at those tables is tiny, but I think 6BB/100 might be sustainable there. IMO the players at party .5/1 are (were?) almost identical to Stars .25/.5, but the severely increased rake cuts in on the BB/100. Over 8k hands on stars I was 4.1 BB/100 at .5/1 and I was by no means an expert. I would not rule 6BB/100 out there, however I would suggest anyone who could make 6BB/100 at any limit should definitely have moved up some time ago.


EDIT: Meh, I don't know why I made this post, your points are all valid, I just reacted to your eeeevil laughter

[/ QUOTE ]

ok im sorry, i should elaborate. no limit game on PARTY can be beat for 6bb/100, simply due to the rake. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the rake is/was at stars, but I suspect that party .50/1 is equivalent in skill level to stars .25/.50. At the partypoker 6max tables, it's not hard to find a table with a 50% average VP$IP. Half the players will be loose aggressives, raising with nothing and driving the pot up. The others will be loose passive, only raising when they have better than a pair, so you can fold and they win no money off you. If you play only one table, instead of 2 or 4 or 8, you can indeed make 6 BB/100. Multitablers lose more of an edge than they realize, I think.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.