Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally off-topic, but when i was first starting out, i used to frequent recpoker.com (i know better now). I dont think i learned jack from reading it, but there was one post that i remember well. It was, perhaps, the hardest i have laughed after reading a poker post.

This guy, makes a post:

Subject:I could beat Jesus Christ if he played at Pacific Poker

Body Its true. He's be all "look at me i'm going to turn water into wine" and change hearts into spades so he can catch his Jesus flush, but I'd be all,"Full house bitch, now give me your f'n money"

[citanul]

So is your argument that mastering something that is simpler than the most complex game requires no skill?

There's still plenty of skill involved in the sngs, even though there is alot of brute science involved. Noticing opponents' tendencies being high amongst those that are necessary.

Plainly put, if EVERYONE involved with the game perfectly mastered all the skills used, then the results would be entirely determined by luck. Since they don't, there is skill. The existence of +ROI long term players is proof enough of this.

citanul

[citanul]

Apparently I should read whole threads more often. I apologize.

citanul

[citanul]

I think that amongst the other clear implications of earlier questions posed in this thread is that if:

Dollar Return on a 50 = Dollar Return on a 100 = Dollar return on a 200 > 0

for a given player,

and this player has a rechargeable bankroll, this player may want to play the 200s, since variance can be your friend, in some ways.

citanul

[wmajik]

[ QUOTE ]

I was talking about *average* $200 SNGs, not the ones full of all the best regulars, but even then, you guys are good, but not *that* good. Get over yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement makes it glaringly obvious that you don't play at the $200+15 level. Try not to lecture others on things you know nothing about.

[Danielih]

nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).

2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.

This is if you're talking about limit. In NL at a level like 2/4, then perhaps your right as stacks would be quite big and skill between very good and great would play a much larger role. But in limit, the best PP grinders are making surprisingly close to (but I'll admit probably lower) what the big game players would make once adjusting.

Yugoslav

[Ezcheeze]

It's pretty clear to me that when he says 2-4 3-6 he means 200-400 and 300-600 and not the super low limits. Also, I have to agree with him. Not only would Phil Ivey be beating the worse players for more than the regular 300 600 players, but he would be beating the regulars themselves for a significant amount.

-Ezcheeze

[Danielih]

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I apologize for not being clear. Generally in my circles people refer to 100 200 200 400 300 600 as 1-2 2-4 3-6.

[ QUOTE ]
2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok well my comments were about Phil I winrates at 300 600. Since I wasnt talking about $3/$6 Im not going to respond to that. But many people have theorized that the upper limits in full table limit ring games is around 3BB per hour. Clearly game situations will develop where there could be a maniac who adds so much money to every pot that the earn is higher.. Also shorthanded the win rates are much much higher.

[Small Stakes]

Party has $1000 buy in singles. A lot of people buy directly into the step 5 and some even multi table them.