| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 7:46am Post subject: crushing SnG's? |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| What would you define as crushing SnG's, ITM and ROI? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 8:00am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109 WPP: 137
|
|
| I think ROI is the defining stat and I personally think 25%+ is very good and 40%+ is crushing the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 2:07pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 3

Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 1529 WPP: 75
Location: Canadian LOLUH'S AND AMERICAN LOLUHS
|
|
| well i don't think anyone could keep a 25% roi over a long period of time say of 5000 sng's. I see people syaying im pimping sng's i have 48% ROI. How many have you played? 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 2:08pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| Interesting, how many SnG's have you played to come up with this conclusion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 2:23pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109 WPP: 137
|
|
You asked my opinion and I gave it, I never said it was fact. Ask DaveSimon and Radashack if you can maintain an ROI of higher than 25% and I promise you they will say yes.
And whats up with attacking me like this, I have in fact played 127 of the $10s over which I have a 40%+ ROI. It might not be sustainable at higher levels and I know its a small sample size but I still believe it might be possible at these low buyin sngs by a very good player even though I might not be able to.
As for the crushing, I dont take that term lightly and that is why I said 40%+ because I someone who is "crushing" the game should be getting insane stats.
So I dont mind you questioning those numbers but whats up with the attitude Muxy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 2:24pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| I agree. My statement was towards muxy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 3:31pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush

Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5407 WPP: 60
|
|
i STILL stand by the 2+2 people, who have played more SNGs than I am sure anyone else here has.
40% ITM and 20% ROI over a few thousand SNGs is crushing the game. Granted at the 5s and 10s the numbers should be much higher, but as levels move up I think that this number constitutes "crushing".
There is a player at PP named gamboolholic_ who has a 6% ROI at the 1k Steps and WSOP Step 6s. She four tables. I believe that consitutes absolutely crushing the game.
And let us please contain the "GOOD ROI GOOD ITM" posts to as few posts as possible, or make a sticky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 3:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
It was a different subject. Its also pointless to regurgitate 2+2 and then state "I have my sources".
Once again, most of those players are playing PP. ROI's will be different with extremely different blind structures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 3:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109 WPP: 137
|
|
| Yes the blind structure makes a HUGE difference. You just cannot compare ROI on party sngs with ROI on PS sngs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 3:54pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush

Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5407 WPP: 60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 4:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush

Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 480 WPP: 104
|
|
I'm confident that I could maintain a 50-75% ROI at the $1.10 SNGs, but this makes no money. Move up to the $5.50's and for a while I was at 50% ROI. But if anyone can attest to the fact that you can't maintain this, it's me.
Believe it or not, the cards you get do come into play and you can't win em all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 5:02pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 813 WPP: 145
Location: Mount Holly, NC
|
|
The biggest problem I have with Irieguy is that he says his post is opinion based on data....that he has no interest in proving his statemens. Then he proceeds to state things as fact.....because he is the authority on the subject. He acknowledges contradictory data, but says he doesn't care about that data because it does not support my conclusions or conflicts with the data he chooses to pay attention to.
Anyway, it all sounds impressive and seems legit but I am far from being convinced....just because an intelligent guy says some impressive things (albeit snotty and superior sounding at times) claiming supportive data does not inspire cofidence in the validity of his claims.
Why beleive him....why believe Soupie....why believe Radashack or myself?? Over time you get to know people....begin to trust them, yes even online you can develop a pretty decent picture of someone's character over a long period of time. I suppose if I got to know him through his posts over the last few years I would be able to more readily accept his claims. In the end, perhaps my exposure to a few truly exceptional people has clouded my vision.
As for "crushing" the game I suppose over 45% would be considered crushing it. I would be lying if I didn't say Irieguy's post didn't worry me a bit. I don't really have an explanation for my unusually high stats, I suppose I have been on a 10 month long "heater" I just hope I can keep it up and prove him wrong. The funny thing is....I had no idea they were considered above "normal" until Mike and Soupie said something - I guess that sometimes if you don't know there is a standard then you can't unconsciously conform to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 5:06pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| You assumed wrong. I was wanting to know what everyone thought was crushing the game. You said you were crushing the $10's at Bodog. Since I dont know what crushing means, I just thought Id ask. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 5:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush

Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5407 WPP: 60
|
|
DavSimon, I understand the issues that you have with Irieguys post. I have the same issue in questioning the validity of his statement, becase as one poster pointed out in that thread, his 10,000 SNGs were spread out over many different levels, and even 10k SNGs isnt a very big sample size. It is his opinion on that issue based on a questionable sample. However, in the end after many reading many posts on this subject, and hearing people such as daliman and gigabet, both very succesful players (gigabet recently placed 5th in a WSOP tourney might have been PLO), recount their statistics playing in the 200s and above, I have come to my own [attempt italics] opinion [end attempted italics] that over a very long term 20% ROI at high levels constitutes crushing the game.
ZeeJustin a very successful player (i think hes 19 or 20) who played in a EPT event, just started his quest for 1k 200s. I think over the first 250 or so SNGs he was running at around 25% ROI. If you believe that as a very god player your ROI could possibly be as high as 40%, here is an example of a very good player running as low as 25%. This would therefore imply that short term sample sizes as big as 250 could potentially represent hot or cold streaks, and that if you can run at 40% over a few hundred, you could also run much lower, and therefore over a long period of time your actual ROI would even out.
Hey gnomes sorry If my post rubbed you the wrong way, it wasnt supposed to. Its hard to discern peoples tone of voice over the internet, and I hope that i didnt come up as an A-Hole or anything.
At this point in time I am NOT crushing the 10s. My most recent statistics are in the "post ur statistics" thread. Those statistics are for my summer session so far. Hoping its just variance and that I dont really suck at poker. |
Last edited by vqc on Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 5:41pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 23 Jun 2005, 5:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 947 WPP: 117
Location: Vancouver
|
|
I'd say davsimmon is running well ontop of crushing the game. I mean he almost literally wrote the book on sit n goes.
sit n go stats are even worse then ring game stats. by the time you have like a 1000 sngs under your belt you are a completely different player and the stats are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 24 Jun 2005, 4:18am Post subject: |
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 99 WPP: 101
Location: Scotland
|
|
I agree with bmxcicles statement.
When I run bad in SNGs I go do something else, whether it be ring or MTTs or read more stuff. I took up poker in Feb, crushed (120% ROI over 200 SNGs) the $5s on Pacific then had a bad spell. I took that as a sign I had to up my game...so I learned different strategies to play ring. I turned my free $10 on Royal Vegas into $300 over a couple of months and then went back to SNGs. My game is constantly evolving so I try to take stats with a pinch of salt. This week I've come back to SNGs and am just breaking even (only 10 SNGs). I know I'm a better player now though so if I put my mind to it I'll be fine. I won't compare these stats to my old SNG stats, though as my game is different.
Making money is the important thing...ROI depends very much upon the type of game you play, rake, blind structure, opposition on the site, level, etc. Assigning arbitary numbers isn't very helpful or useful. Conversely, though, I don't see 20%+ being unattainable, but (as always) it depends! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 24 Jun 2005, 7:36am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| Yea my bad. sorry for snapping back. I tend to get on the defensive bro, no worries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Jul 2005, 11:57pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 812 WPP: 92
Location: Gamblers Anonymous
|
|
| Im running an amazing 80% ROI at the $22's on UB. This is over 52 SnG's which is not a huge sample but I think it's big enough to prove I can win consitently which I am proud of. I've had a lot of good fortune over this run but I still think over the long haul 50% is completely possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Jul 2005, 7:30am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| Its really not. I'm not saying your a bad player, but I had a 59% ITM and a 78% ROI for a long time. Its easy to get those numbers in a 50 SnG block. Play about 300 and its almost impossible, trust me I tried. Over 373 SnG's, I am running around a 40% ROI. You keep forgetting its not all about your play. Varience will hit eventually. You will have 1 month where you think you forgot how to play. AJ loses to AQ with an J high flop. That one card flush kills you every time. The only way to maintain a decent ROI is to not lose your head when this happens. If you do on tilt, it only makes the numbers drop further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Jul 2005, 7:50am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109 WPP: 137
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Jul 2005, 8:06am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1189 WPP: 77
Location: Louisiana
|
|
| No I was talking about something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Jul 2005, 9:15am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|