#1
|
|||
|
|||
4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
I just recently finished my first 300 Sng while 4-tabling the 20+2. The result was an ROI of 28%. A really bad run in the end took a cut of my ROI but I think 28% is ok. Atleast it's not negative. I would just like to know how it stands against other people 4-tabling the 20+2. 300 is not a big sample but it's good enough for a rough estimate.
Now I started to mix in a 30+3 in every 20+2 set. Will be interesting to see how big difference there is between 20+2 and 30+3. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
I played 250 $20s 4 tabling (staggar start) and had an ROI of 32%. I felt this was pretty low at the time, but now I realize how lucky I was at the $10 to maintain a 40%+ ROI.
Since then I've moved to the 30s and have a 33% ROI over the last 82. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
Man, why does everyone who gets 20%+ ROI complain about it being low. ROI on this forum gets waaaay inflated due to small sample sizes and selective posting. 4-tabling the 22s you should be thrilled with a long term 28% ROI (not that yours is truly long term by *any* means).
You should have a big smile on your face and almost surely move to the 33s -- where don't be surprised if you're not also not over 30% ROI. Yugoslav |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
. Will be interesting to see how big difference there is between 20+2 and 30+3. [/ QUOTE ] I, for one, can tell you that the $33's are much easier than the $22's. Irieguy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] . Will be interesting to see how big difference there is between 20+2 and 30+3. [/ QUOTE ] I, for one, can tell you that the $33's are much easier than the $22's. Irieguy [/ QUOTE ] Wait until you get to the $55s -- with those extra starting chips it's waaaay easier man, not even close. I hope you see why, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. Yugoslav |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, can tell you that the $33's are much easier than the $22's. [/ QUOTE ] That's not what you said, repeatedly, over here. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I, for one, can tell you that the $33's are much easier than the $22's. [/ QUOTE ] That's not what you said, repeatedly, over here. [/ QUOTE ] Does no one online have a sense of humor anymore? I mean, seriously. I really hope this is failed humor on your part but I can't talk myself into that interpretation. Yugoslav |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
Does no one online have a sense of humor anymore? I mean, seriously. I really hope this is failed humor on your part but I can't talk myself into that interpretation. Yugoslav [/ QUOTE ] This isn't rec.humor.poker, it's a poker advice board. It's frequented by a mix of players at a mix of skill levels. Many of them are just learning. Posts like this can lead to inexperienced players believing that 30+3s are, for whatever reason, easier than 20+2s. If you don't think anybody believes this, read a few more threads. I had the importance of this stressed to me long ago after I made a post where I used the phrase 'I lost the maximum' in a way that could lead new posters to believe that I should have played more timidly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
Easy Mosch. Donīt make people look dumber than they are. I think the point is fairly obvious.
Peter [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG
[ QUOTE ]
I just recently finished my first 300 Sng while 4-tabling the 20+2. The result was an ROI of 28%. A really bad run in the end took a cut of my ROI but I think 28% is ok. Atleast it's not negative. I would just like to know how it stands against other people 4-tabling the 20+2. 300 is not a big sample but it's good enough for a rough estimate. Now I started to mix in a 30+3 in every 20+2 set. Will be interesting to see how big difference there is between 20+2 and 30+3. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I played 250 $20s 4 tabling (staggar start) and had an ROI of 32%. I felt this was pretty low at the time, but now I realize how lucky I was at the $10 to maintain a 40%+ ROI. Since then I've moved to the 30s and have a 33% ROI over the last 82. [/ QUOTE ] Your ROI numbers are meaningless with those sample sizes. They are probably a bit lower than that over the long term. |
|
|