|
|
#11
06-29-2004, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another SNG Theory Question
Obviously more chips and slower blinds makes the game more skill involved. This definately increases your expected ROI if you're a strong player. However this also increases the ROI of your strong opponenents and causes the time/value of the SnG to decrease. It now might take an hour and 25 minutes to finish whereas before it took 42 minutes. Is a gain of 10% ROI worth doubling the amount of time it takes to play?
|
|
#12
06-29-2004, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another SNG Theory Question
[ QUOTE ]
I played one $60 turbo and just hated the blinds. [/ QUOTE ] It takes some time to adjust. You know you shouldn't jump to conclusions after only one game [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. I had to struggle when I first started playing the 60's, after being consistent ~35 % ROI winner on the 27's. It took me some time to adjust to the tighter game/shorter early rounds, but now I'm doing just fine, if not better (ROI wise) than the $27's. I'm saying all this only to make the point that adjusting is completly possible, as long as you have the room to take advantage of others' mistakes. And the opposition does a lot of mistakes, only different mistakes for different players and different levels and buy-in's. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] I think this "crap-shoot" argument, can be valid even for certain limit ring games. For example, you would think that even a very very solid player, will have hard time achieving 1bb/h playing 100/200 limit, while he'll probably be able to earn much more (in terms of BB's!) in a smaller limit. However, the margin, which could be very small, represents a significant diffrence in real $$. (You would much rather win 1/2 BB/H in a 100/200 limit, than 6 BB/H in a 3/6, this is very obvious...). For a non-expert, who is not aware of the most delicate subtleties of the game, this 1/2 BB/H win rate, might look like a crap-shoot, i.e, he can not realize where the advantage is, and actually, with 1/2 BB/h, you'd probably have very serious swings, which makes it look even more like a crap-shoot. But you still have a "long-term" advantage, even if it is noticeable only after a big enough sample). I don't know enough about limit-game theory to go deeper into this comparison, but I'm pretty convinced that the whole idea of "edge" in poker, is pretty much the same, essentially, in SNGs, NL, limit, or whatever.
|
|
#13
06-29-2004, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another SNG Theory Question
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] I've been in a similar position. My Party SnG stats indicate that I was winning $13/hour in the $30+3 SnG's (ROI 27%) and am currently at about $24/hour in the $50+5's (ROI 24%). Given that there's much room for improvement in ROI in both cases (I've got a high proportion of 2nds and 3rds compared to 1sts) then the 50's are equivalent to winning 1-2BB/hr on the Party 5/10 tables. However, I found that the swings much greater in the ring games compared to the SnG's so have tended to concentrate efforts on the SnG's in recent months. I'm also trying out the new 30+3 3-table SnG's and believe that $20+/hr is achievable on them (I wish they'd do higher buy-ins). However, I haven't played enough to assess the likely swings at present. I had a real good run in the first few (ITM>50%) but then have had a run of about 8 without cashing. I've only played 35 so far so I don't know where the likely level is yet. I would like to try the Party 2-table games but the only one's available are £5+1's through Empire and Intertops. Hopefully, there'll be more choice brought in over time. The scheduled Multi's are difficult to assess on a long-term basis. Potentially they will give the greatest returns but will involve long periods without significant wins. This might be hard to take if you were playing them exclusively. One thing I have found is that I tend to stagnate after playing a single format for too long and, also, playing too many Party SnG's adversely affects my ring game play (I tend to become weak-tight as if to conserve my chips!) In an attempt to counter this I now currently mix it up between $50 SnG's, $30 3-tables and 5/10 ring games (sometime playing one of each at a time). I also play the Multi's that catch my eye but most of the big ones tend to run in the middle of the night over here (starting at 2am) so aren't feasible on a regular basis. I've also found that playing a single 5/10 ring table at the same time as a couple of SnG's has been beneficial to my bankroll swings. A bad session in the ring game can quickly be retrieved by a couple of SnG cashes and a lean spell in the SnG's can be wiped out by a couple of big ring-game pots. Combining the 'steady earn' with the step-change results from the SnG's has worked well so far. Another benefit is that focusing on only 1 ring game table also helps me keep track of the players much better than when multi-tabling ring games alone. I'm sure this method won't suit everyone but I've certainly found it beneficial. Just thought I'd share my experiences as you seem to be going through something similar to me. I certainly enjoy the variety of games much more now than when I was just grinding out at ring game tables a few months ago. If one particular format drives me mad for a while I can just drop it for a few days and get it out of my system without having to stop playing altogether. Sheriff
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
