17 replies to this topic

[Emmser]

I play mainly $5 and $10 sit n go's or the $25 no limit tables.I have recently read Jennifer Harman's Limit section in SS2and thought I might start playing some limit tables.I hear so much on here about if you are winning 2-3BB/100 hands you are a good player. I don't have a very large bankroll so I would probably be playing the .25/.50 limit tables to start. But at 2-3BB/100 I would only be making $1 to $1.50/100 hands which takes over an hour to play.I don't see how this can be very profitable at all!In 5 hours of play on avg. I would only be up $5 to $7.50? That doesn't even seem worth it. I can play a lot of sit n go's in 5 hours!

[Rocketwadster]

i just got Super System 2 on Tuesday, and haven't finished the Limit section that she wrote as of yet (about halfway through I figure). I play a lot more Stud Hi/Lo ring games ($0.50/$1.00) than Limit Hold'em, so I can't really compare the two (as they are completely different games), and I shoot for about 5-10 BB per hour at Stud (which I have been getting since I started playing at Paradise). :-) Limit poker is a game of mathematics a lot more so than No Limit. The laws of probabilities tend to make the cards even out over a long duration, so you need to shoot for what you may consider a fairly low win ratio (2-3BB/100 hands). Remember that in a Sit-N-Go, the blinds go up after a set duration/number of hands, whereas in a Ring game, they stay the same throughout, so you play (at least you should) differently in a Sit-N-Go than a Ring Game. :wink:

[Emmser]

I am fully aware that you need to play differently in a sit n go then a ring game. My argument is that I don't see a point in playing limit until I get a bankroll where I can start playing higher limits like 2/4 or 3/6 to make a decent hourly rate at 2-3BB/100 hands.

[Rocketwadster]

Emmser said:

I am fully aware that you need to play differently in a sit n go then a ring game. My argument is that I don't see a point in playing limit until I get a bankroll where I can start playing higher limits like 2/4 or 3/6 to make a decent hourly rate at 2-3BB/100 hands.

Please tell me how you are going to get a higher bankroll of the levels you have described playing Sit-N-Go's? Sure, you can play a lot of them in 5 hours, but do you honestly think that you will over the long haul make that kind of money at them? The more you play the more the law of averages indicates that you would level out, especially considering the level that you (and I!!!) are currently playing at, where you will suffer more bad beats due to the skill level of your opponents being fairly low (resulting in them making foolish decisions that will hurt you). I am not trying to discourage you, and not trying to tell you that your thinking is wrong, just trying to help you understand Harman's statement. :wink:

[Emmser]

This is from one of my other posts but is an example of how I think playing sit n go's is more profitable than playing micro limit poker."I decided to run an experiment: to play a $5 sit n go per day for a month to see if I could make a profit. At $5.50 a pop it cost $170.50 to cover the total buyin for the month. At the end of the month I had the following results. 10 - 1st place finishes, and 3 - 3rd place finsihes, I finished 4th (just out of the money) 4 times and oddly enough never finished 2nd. I thought these were decent but not great results but there was a 7 day span were I didn't finish in the money at all Anyways when all is said and done I ended the month up $109.50. I might try the same experiment with $10 sit n go's next month. "

[Rocketwadster]

Emmser said:

This is from one of my other posts but is an example of how I think playing sit n go's is more profitable than playing micro limit poker."I decided to run an experiment: to play a $5 sit n go per day for a month to see if I could make a profit. At $5.50 a pop it cost $170.50 to cover the total buyin for the month. At the end of the month I had the following results. 10 - 1st place finishes, and 3 - 3rd place finsihes, I finished 4th (just out of the money) 4 times and oddly enough never finished 2nd. I thought these were decent but not great results but there was a 7 day span were I didn't finish in the money at all Anyways when all is said and done I ended the month up $109.50. I might try the same experiment with $10 sit n go's next month. "

Unless I am mistaken, there is a ton of luck involved with poker (skill can only take you so far). And like I said earlier, due to the bad playing of others at these low limits, the law of averages would indicate that if you did the same experiment again at the same levels, sure you may show a profit, but I doubt it would be as high as you were able to achieve that month. I have also been very successful in sit-n-go's, but never in my right mind would I consider them to be profitable enough on their own to allow me to move up a level or two (ie. to the $10 or $20 sit-n-go's). Remember also that as you move up levels, you opponents skill level will also be much higher, therefore reducing your profit margin accordingly. I wish you nothing but the best of luck (unless we are playing against each other :wink: ).

[Emmser]

Haha, thank you.

[Rocketwadster]

I forgot to mention that clearly a TON of luck was involved inyour little experiment, simply due to the number of first place finishes compared to the number of second place finishes. Not a single second place finish...now that is weird wild stuff

[Emmser]

I think it just shows how powerful my heads up skills are :-) jk.

[redfish]

Emmser said:

This is from one of my other posts but is an example of how I think playing sit n go's is more profitable than playing micro limit poker."I decided to run an experiment: to play a $5 sit n go per day for a month to see if I could make a profit.  At $5.50 a pop it cost $170.50 to cover the total buyin for the month.  At the end of the month I had the following results.  10 - 1st place finishes, and 3 - 3rd place finsihes,  I finished 4th (just out of the money) 4 times and oddly enough never finished 2nd.  I thought these were decent but not great results but there was a 7 day span were I didn't finish in the money at all  Anyways when all is said and done I ended the month up $109.50.  I might try the same experiment with $10 sit n go's next month. "

One month or 30 sitngo's is no where near enough to get any kind of sample. The swings can be pretty big.It isn't a good idea to play $5 sitngo's on party poker because you are paying a $1 "rake" for every tourney but you can play $10 tables for the same $1 "rake". I don't think you will find any noticeable difference between the skill level of the players. Obviously you do need a little bigger bank roll to play 10's but I would move to them as soon as it permits.

[Emmser]

I currently play at Ultimate Bet where the buy ins are $5+.50.

[Awful]

Well, a good SnG ROI is 40%, above which is the unsustainable end of the variance curve.So, on your 5.50, you net 2 bucks in profit for each play, about an hour and a quarter; about how long it takes to get 100 hands at a table. 3 BB at .25-.5 which requires a similar BR is 1.50, so you're ahead 1-tabling the SnG vs. the ring game.Can you multitable SnG's as easily as you can ring games? I can rock 4 ring games with minimal drop in efficiency (some misclicks or lack of reads, but nothing pronounced at .25-.5 or .5-1), and I don't feel nearly as confident multitabling SnG's. 4 ring games at three bb/100 is triple what I could expect long-term against 1 SnG per unit time. If you can more than 3-table as effectively as you play it evens out, but the multitable factor is a big thing for ring games (or streamlining your SnG play to multi effectively)SnG's offer an illusion though, big scores or losses, black and white. It probably feels like less of a grind when you do your stats, but the difference isn't that pronounced.

[Wilderness]

Emmser said:

I am fully aware that you need to play differently in a sit n go then a ring game.  My argument is that I don't see a point in playing limit until I get a bankroll where I can start playing higher limits like 2/4 or 3/6 to make a decent hourly rate at 2-3BB/100 hands.

But if you haven't played the thousands of hands you would be playing at the lower limits how do you think you will be able to jump into 2/4 or 3/6 and actually make a profit? Just because you read SS2? Given that you mostly play NL SNG's and NL tables, you will need to adjust to a limit game and its probably not the best idea for your bankroll to be trying to do that at a 3/6 table.

[Emmser]

I am not saying I want to jump into the $2/4 or $3/6 game.I was saying that until I have a bankroll that can allow me to play those levels I don't see the point in playing limit if I am only going to be making 2-3BB/100 hands. If I start at the .25/.50 tables that is $1-$1.5 per 100 hands! Hardly seems worth it.

[Wilderness]

Emmser said:

If I start at the .25/.50 tables that is $1-$1.5 per 100 hands! Hardly seems worth it.

That's also only for one table. If you are good enough to beat a .25/.50 game for 3 BB/100 then you should be able to to beat 3 or 4 tables for 2/2.5 BB's each. Now, about your month experiment. Ignoring the fact that its such a small sample and that you won't consistently make that much in the long run, let's break down the money you made. You made 109.50 playing 31 SNG's. Most SNG's are between 1 hour and 1 1/2 hours so let's just assume that they all lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes. That means you made 2.83/hour for that month. Now, you can't truly compare money per 100 hands and per hour, but if you are just 2 tabling .25/.50 and beating each for 3BB/100, then you will be making about the same as you did for that month. Add another table or two and you are doing better than you did with your SNG's.Of course, that is IF you can beat multiple tables of .25/.50 for 3BB/100. Not having played limit (or least you haven't mentioned you have experience with it), I doubt you can do that, at least not for a while. So if you just want to make as much money as you can right now, then stick with what you know. If you want to improve your limit game, so you can eventually move up to limits where you can make more money than you do now, then start playing the low limit tables and learn how to beat them.

[BPV]

also, that statistic is simply saying that over the course of a very large sample of hands, 2-3 bb/100 hands is what you should be shooting for.. that does not mean that in one session after an hour you'll only be up 2 dollars... i 4 tabled .25/.50 for hours on end one day, and ended the day up 100+ dollars.. thats when i stopped playing sit n gos

[GreenLizard]

I think the key here is:

Wilderness said:

Emmser said:

I am fully aware that you need to play differently in a sit n go then a ring game. My argument is that I don't see a point in playing limit until I get a bankroll where I can start playing higher limits like 2/4 or 3/6 to make a decent hourly rate at 2-3BB/100 hands.

But if you haven't played the thousands of hands you would be playing at the lower limits how do you think you will be able to jump into 2/4 or 3/6 and actually make a profit? Just because you read SS2? Given that you mostly play NL SNG's and NL tables, you will need to adjust to a limit game and its probably not the best idea for your bankroll to be trying to do that at a 3/6 table.

[edub10304]

Playing 2-4 limit at PP. I swear, play tight aggresive position poker. Have patience and you will get paid. You will take your beats, but over the long hall you will win.I play 400 hand sessions nightly.edub