Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?

[Big Limpin']

Just a random thought...if there were SnGs offered at, say, 2000+100, or 5000+250, or whatever...and in the future, there may be...

Would the best player in the world be able to beat the vig?

1) if only the 10 best players in the world were playing
2) if there is one or two sub-par players ponying up

I think you see where im going with this, but if not:

Say a very very good player can attain:

40% ROI @ 10+1
35% ROI @ 20+2
30% ROI @ 30+3
25% ROI @ 50+4
20% ROI @ 100+8
15% ROI @ 200+15
(or whatever, fabricated #'s)

Well, his return for all these is AFTER the vig. i.e. 30% ROI is more like 40% ROI from the actual poker being played (math error acknowledged, and ignored).

What im asking is, do you think there could be games where the best player couldnt beat the vigorish? Long term I mean. He would still be "winning", but his ROI may be below zero.

I think its reasonable to assume that you wont get too many whales in a $5000 tourney that lasts for only an hour. SO, probably, the worst player at theese imaginary stakes would still be ranked as an "A-" player.

This kind of assumes the sites wont put a rake cap in. If the normal limit games now are 10%, and the highest limits closer to 8%, it seems reasonable that, if offered, these games would still have a 5% vig or more.

Assorted questions:

-What do you think will be the highest buy-in next year? in 2 years? etc.

-Will there be any whales playing these games?

-Could the worlds best SNG player beat the vig versus 9 other pros? 8 pros, 1 fish?

[Superfluous Man]

I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account.

The world's best SNG player would probably still have a positive ROI in your hypothetical biggest game.

[Mr_J]

"I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account"

It does. By 'winning' with a -EV I think he means better than 30% ITM, but not enough to beat the vig.

[lacky]

I think your assumption that bad players wouldn't play is wrong. Just look at the 25 50 nl game at ub. Lots of good players, lots of fish. When people will play $100,000 hands of blackjack why do you think they would shy away from a $5000 sng?

[AlexM]

1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Limpin', he does have a point. $5000 is much too low when you consider that the The Biggest (Side) Game can go as high as $100,000-$200,000. also, the best $215 SNG players, IMHO, are no where near the caliber of "best" players in the world" and would'nt stand a long-term chance playing in SNGs at the stakes that would warrant these players (best of the best, i.e. Barry Greenstein) time.

a $50,000 buy-in for a SNG, played by the most elite cash game players in the world, would be a good figure. however, it would be very interesting to find out how one would profit from these over the long run. an elite player against lesser players, definitely +$EV. an elite player against other equally skilled elite players, i'd say -$EV to breakeven to slight +$EV.

[adanthar]

If it's a $50K SNG the vig on it's going to max out at, like, 1%.

I think SOMEONE in that game'll have a 1% edge.

[Big Limpin']

lol. even at 1%, imagine a $500 vig. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe