Playing SNG tables a good idea?

[Irieguy]

Correct, Aleo. I meant 1.5-2 buy-ins, but typed 2.5-3 for some reason. I then calculated the $-value SD from that number by mistake.

Thank you for the correction.

Irieguy

[ThorGoT]

Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't ub offere 5+.5s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an easy answer to this. Play 'game 1' and get a rakeback deal.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy, I'm going to nit-nit-pick back. There is a practical difference between paying $18/hr in rake in Game 1 and $5/hr in rake in Game 2 even if your hourly rate is $15/hr (after that rake) in both. Why? Because rake isn't a constant. So if you had the opportunity to play the equivalent of Games 1 & 2 in a rake free world, you'd play Game 1. That is the extreme case, of course, but the general principle matters to the online player. Do you see why? (I just wanted to channel DS once!)

That nit on a nit aside, the main point of your post is, as usual, insightful and right on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an easy answer to this. Play 'game 1' and get a rakeback deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rakeback deals apply to tournament entry fees as well. At least the one I have does.

[Irieguy]

You should still play game 1, then.

Irieguy

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that most winning SNG players will only have a SD of about 1.7 Buy-ins.


[/ QUOTE ]
I have heard you mention that several times, now. Thanks to a magificent spreadsheet I found somehere, my SD is exactly 1.7. Why is that? What's so magical about 1.7? Or is it like the Compunding Interest Rule of 72 . . . it just is.

[AleoMagus]

As Irie has mentioned in the past, the SD of poker results is determined more by the game and structure than by individual playing considerations.

It just happens that the 10 player, 3 places paid, 50% 30% 20% structure of most SNGs produces a SD roughly equal to 1.7 buy-ins.

This is actually an estimate which may be too specific. I suppose that 1.6 to 1.8 would be a bit better.

Better players will have higher SD but I'd be very surprised to see it get much higher than 1.8 buy-ins over a large sample.

Nothing magical, just the way SNG results tend to turn out.

Regards
Brad S

[viennagreen]

sitting at any table full of people of equal or better skill will not be profitable long term-- whether it is a SNG or a ring-game.

if the point that you are making is that "table selection is important", you are most certainly correct...

oh-- and you do not need to be clearly better than at least 6 players for playing an SNG to be profitable. If you were at a table and were one of 9 players of exactly equal ability, and there was 1 player who sucked *ss, then those 9 players would be break-even long term (assuming a 10% rake).

[lacky]

you need a +EV goal. Try playing more and posting less. Move half your posting hours into the playing hours column and should see a profit.

Steve