$33 STT 2 months of data trying out pro

[ebaudry]

Just finished my 2nd month using only poker for an income. My first month had me optimistic, my second pessimistic. Both sets of results are for roughly 20hrs/week of play.

Month 1: played 350 $33 tables 2-at-a-time and won $1,900
Month 2: played 450 $33 tables 3-at-a-time and broke even.

I am trying to 4-table $33 tables asap, with the goal being to either then move to 6-tables, or perhaps up to 4-tables at $55. Which option would you pursue if you were me, given my data:

A) Spend month 3 2-tabling since a profit seems more likely there.

B) Spend month 3 3-tabling since I have yet to prove that I can make money 3-tabling and I may need more practice.

C) Spend month 3 4-tabling since its not so different from 3-tabling and the extra 100-150 games I am likely to get in the month are worth the distraction of an extra table.

D) Spend month 3 2-tabling and improving my game since I shouldn't have one month of $1,900 profit and the next at $0.

E) Some other option that furthers my goals that I'm not coming up with?

Thanks a lot, this is harder than I thought!

-Eric

[lorinda]

Play 200 $33s 2 at a time and do some low limit bonus whoring?

Lori

[ebaudry]

Thanks Lori for the suggestion. I want to stay focused on STTs for now as I think that is where my particular poker skills work best.

I have thought about the bonus whoring possibility, but it seems that if my first months results were close to my long run abilities, then I am making more money 2-tabling than going after any bonuses.

[lacky]

well, first, it is far more likely that the average of all your games is closer to your ability. It's always nicer to disreagard the crappy data, but it is very unlikely that going from 2 tables to 3 tables had that much effert on your game. It's more likely you ran well, then ran poorly. To have more accurate data add in all your prior games (you did play before you "went pro" right?)

As far as useful advice, if poker is your job now, work more. It is very hard to support yourself these days working 20 hour a week at any job. A few here can make enough doing it, but until you've proven your one of them, work fulltime, 35 to 45 hours a week.

Steve

[Sciolist]

I agree with all of the above. Your sample size isn't large enough over either month to have any kind of idea what your ROI was, and whether month one or two is closer to what you can expect to make.

Who knows, maybe you're a ninja player and ran bad in month one and ran horribly in month two. I sincerely doubt that one table makes much difference at this point though.

I'm getting breakeven at the $33s 4 at once, but I'm doing a lot, lot better at the $20s. I have played as many games as you over the same period, and I have a 40something hour a week regular job too, plus I only get to play every other day as I am forced down the pub etc the other days. Obviously I'm four tabling (actually, I 8 table, but I'm not counting the results/numbers from that other account in the above statements), but still. Play more!

[Mr_J]

"It is very hard to support yourself these days working 20 hour a week at any job."

I'm sure someone 8tabling 109s for 10% and earning 2k a week, 20hrs a week has a very hard life [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

To answer OPs question. With that ROI you need quite a bit of work before you move to the $55s. Play a number of tables that allow you to work on your game. Once your game has improved, then add tables, play some to build a sample and then look at whether you are ready to move up. You could skip the 'build a sample' part if you get a good player to evaluate your game and gives you the ok to move up.

Just take this as an opinion. Seems like a good idea to me though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[downtown]

You need to listen to lacky and play more if this is your full time job. Also, you need to play 4 at once, get used to it, and then play more if possible. This is an alternative to putting in more hours. If you feel intimidated at first by all the activity, drop down to a level which you're more comfortable with until it seems easy to you. Then play a lot more SNGs.

FWIW I have more SNGs than you this month (which is not that many, and it looks like you're saying the last 4 weeks, in which I have MANY more) with many less hours, but I average 9/hr and I have a full time job until I go back to grad school in January, I'm building my roll by 8-tabling. I don't think I could live on poker now, but I could come close. You might want to also consider your planning for being a pro. You're going to need more volume and that's only going to come via more hours or more tables.

[EnderFFX]

My suggestions:

1) Play more, those are small sample sizes, and if you want to make a living playing the SnG your going to need to play a lot more hours, especially if you are at the 30's and only 2-3 tabling.

2) Get a rakeback deal if you don't already have one. Most rake back deals will give you 25% of your rake back. $0.75 per $30 tourney = $600 you may have missed out on from those 8 tourneys.

3) Get a second job so you can 4 table. From my experience there is little difference between 2 tabling and 4 tabling. The only difference is the one in your head, once you get used to it, it is no problem.

What do you do? Are you a college student who only needs extra money for parties/books? Are you a father of 5 feeding his children bread and water because his poker income isn't enough?

I am doing the same thing you are doing. Check out my blog at efxterp.blogspot.com if you want to see my experience attempting to turn pro. I'm in the same boat you are at except i'm 8 tabling the 20's.

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to also consider your planning for being a pro? You're going to need more volume and that's only going to come via more hours or more tables.

[/ QUOTE ]None of us knows what his income requirements are. To get better, quicker, he probably needs to spend more time per week. But, maybe he's not in a hurry.

If he is willing to put in some extra time, I'd suggest playing at a comfortable level for 20 hours per week and adding in some number of hours of three- or four-tabling. When the three- and four-tabling comes around to better ROI levels, gradually switch to doing it all the time.

If you're set on 20 hours per week (I see nothing wrong with this), maybe start your sessions three- or four-tabling and if it's going well, keep at it, if it's not going well, drop to two-tables where you're more comfortable.

[ebaudry]

Thanks everyone for the useful advice.

I agree, the 2 month sample together is the best indication of my ability, given my small sample size. I only lean towards the first month because I can tell my cards have been a little cold the second month.

Income requirements: Poker is my only "job", but I'm young, single and frugal, so $1000-2000 a month is plenty of money. Nothing wrong with more, but that will pay my bills and help with bankroll building. Also, I currently don't really want to play more than 20hrs/week, so looks like I should be moving up to 4-tabling asap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I agree that my game isn't yet ready for the $55 level.

Ender mentioned rakeback, that isn't available on PP, right? Is there another site that offers rakeback, that still has games as soft as PP?

I actually put in a lot more than 20hrs/week at poker, but the rest of the time is spent reading these forums and reading and re-reading my poker books. I only switched to NL at the beginning of month 1, so I think I still have a lot of theory yet to learn. Aside from TPFAP, HOH 1/2, any good reads?

Question for those moving up the multi-tabling ladder. I find at 3 tables I can't really keep good notes anymore, I am sure 4 tables will be much worse. As you go to 4-tabling and beyond, do you simply stop taking notes on the less important stuff, or altogether? With multiple tables i lose the ability to remember what size raise will fold people on a given table, and I can only remember who the maniacs are without checking notes. Also, I become more mechanical in my continuation bets and probe less. Anyone else with me?

Thanks again for all the help,
Eric