4-tabling party 20+2 NL SnG

[Zelcious]

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.

[Seadood228]

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.

[The Yugoslavian]

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

[Irieguy]

[ 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

[The Yugoslavian]

[ 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

[mosch]

[ 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.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ 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

[mosch]

[ 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.

[PBaek]

Easy Mosch. Don´t make people look dumber than they are. I think the point is fairly obvious.

Peter [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Myst]

[ 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.