Are you sure about ROI

[Sidekick]

[ QUOTE ]
This magic number of ~22% ROI, does it take into account the quality of competition? Surely it's easier to win at a 5 or 10 buck table as opposed to a 100 table. Wouldn't this perhaps lead to a higher percentage?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the lower levels a much higher ITM% and ROI are quite sustainable. At the $10 level an ITM of 45%+ and ROI of 30%+ are quite possible over the long run.

The problem is that the competition gets a bit tougher at each level as you move up. So that by the time you reach the $215 level that a ROI of 20% is extremely good.

Pick the best player in the world (doesn't matter who you think it is) and drop him/her into 1000+ SNGs at the $10+$1 tables with half the table being fish and a couple of people that are actually learning and improving. The pro will crush the games easily.

Now, each time you move up a level add 1 more highly skilled player to the 9 or 10 person table at which he plays and reduce the number of players that are going to make stupid plays.

By the time you reach the $215 level you then have 6 highly skilled players at the table and 2-3 more that are very competent players and maybe 1 person that will play stupidly (just because they are rich and feel like seeing some action or whatever). When there is this level of competition it is extremely difficult to finish 1st and 2nd a sufficient percentage of the time in order to sustain a high ROI (25%+).

Hope this answers your question.

[The once and future king]

1. What makes you think 22% is a magic number.

2. 40% is sustainable at lower limits.

3. If you maintian a positive ROI then of course just playing SnGs is profitable in the long term.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

2. 40% is sustainable at lower limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

It may be (though only at the $10s, I'd guess), but I've never heard of anyone with this ROI and a big enough sample size at this level. "Well, of course not", you say, "people who are soundly beating the low limits tend to move up quickly." Yes, but the fact remains that since none of them stuck around at the $10s/$20s long enough, their ROIs are suspect.

[The once and future king]

40% ITM.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
40% ITM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. Yes, I agree...I think 40% ITM is sustainable at the $10s and $20s at the very least.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see how 50% could be un-achievable, especially given that just by chance you should get 33%.

[/ QUOTE ]
No sarcasm here - but I think you severely misjudge the huge difference between 33% and 50% ITM.

For every 100 tournaments you'd need to be ITM 17 more times than the "average" player. At the high limits, where the average player is usually very good, that's pretty much impossible over the long term.

I may be wrong on this, but I think a lot of the top high-limit SNG'ers make their ROI by a higher percentage of 1st and 2nd place finishes compared to 3rds. In other words, their ITM might only be a little bit higher than average, but those finishes are disproportionately weighted to 1st and 2nd.

[El Maximo]

When you start asking questions about the sustainability of high ROI at the 109s or 215s, I think you should consider moving down a level or 2. Its not a question of skill but more a question of psychology. You may have trouble enduring the bad streaks that are inevitable. How are you going to feel losing 10, 20, or more buyins in a row at the 109s if you have unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM. I had the same unrealistic goals of ROI and ITM when I was running hot during my first 350 SnGs. Than the next 200 brought me back to reality. The veterans on this site tell it to you straight. If they say something is unsustainable than it is.

[FishBurger]

Here's what happens when you are running good:

You're shortstacked and it's folded around to you in the SB. You have KK and minraise. BB goes allin with AK. You double up and end up winning the tourney. You feel like a genius.

Here's what happens when you're running bad:

You're in the SB with KQs. CO raises to 2.5BB. You correctly interpret this as a steal attempt and move allin. CO flips over Q-10, two tens fall on the flop, CO takes the 2000 pot, and you get knocked out in fifth.

---

Both of these scenarios happened to me in recent respective good and bad runs. I bet if you go back and look at your hands you will see much more of the first scenario and much less of the second. Your current high ROI is probably due to your getting good hands which aren't getting sucked out on.

[rwanger]

To answer the Q above...I'm talking 10 person satelites.

Forgetting odds and data people have collected and whatnot, is 40% in the money sustainable? And if it is, could you imagine having placed in the money ONCE more in your previous 20 tournaments (you would just have to have played 1 hand differently). Then you'd be up to 45%.

And don't anyone give the example of that 1 more in 20 taking you all the way up to 100% in the money, I already thought of that.

[Grivan]

The problem is even if you play a SNG perfectly you are not required to cash. At the higher levels you might have 4 people at the table who are able to play a very near perfect SNG, and 6 people who are just slightly worse.