|
|
#1
10-22-2005, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
I feel that compared to Ring Games and Multi table tourneys Single Tables are not very profitable. My argument for this is mostly because of the blind structure. It seems that after a few people have left the tourney, each players M is so low that all-in bet's are extremely common and necessary. I've been playing Single tables alot lately, but I mostly think of them as practice for final tables.
|
|
#2
10-22-2005, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
If you mean in terms of ROI, return on investment, then yes SnG's aren't that hot, but you can finish on in 30-40 minutes, and you can play up to 10 at a time. So the hourly rate can be quite nice.
|
|
#3
10-22-2005, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
Also less variance than Cash Tables? I believe so anyway which is also nice.
|
|
#5
10-22-2005, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean in terms of ROI, return on investment, then yes SnG's aren't that hot, but you can finish on in 30-40 minutes, and you can play up to 20 at a time. So the hourly rate can be quite nice. [/ QUOTE ] Edit to say something to OP: Wow, we've all been wasting our time!!! Thanks for pointing out that sngs don't pay well, I never realized!!!
|
|
#6
10-22-2005, 04:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean in terms of ROI, return on investment, then yes SnG's aren't that hot, but you can finish on in 30-40 minutes, and you can play up to 10 at a time. So the hourly rate can be quite nice. [/ QUOTE ] I've been through this a few times and it always comes around to them all being about the same for similar skill levels and similar bankrolls (risk of ruins). The one thing that seems to favor cash games is they seem to generate a lot more rakeback. edit: I really haven't thought that much about MTTs, mainly just STTs vs cash.
|
|
#7
10-22-2005, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
your right in a sense. ring cash games, particularly shorthanded games are more profitable. The reason though is more due to the fact that you can seek out spacific weak opponents to exploit weaknesses that you already know about. you can often take advantage of the weaknesses meny times in a single session, because they dont have to leave when they bust. Table selection is much more deficult in sng's.
Steve
|
|
#8
10-22-2005, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
Yeah, I'll never forget the night I stacked the same guy three times in less than an hour.
But, when you talk about BR and BBs/hr or whatever for 'good' or 'average' players it works out to be pretty much the same. I guess if you rely especially on table selection you will want to play cash games.
|
|
#9
10-22-2005, 05:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
i hate the monotony of ring games. it's just cards. tournaments have situations.
|
|
#10
10-22-2005, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t feel single table tourneys are that profitable
Sng's are very profitable. But...
Are there other forms of poker where you can meke more? Yes. Can everyone make more playing other games? NO I play the $55's and $109's and make decent money compared to some here. But I don't even think I can beat nl 100. So obvously this is where I play for now, because I enjoy making money. For some it may be different. Sng's are that profitable though.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
