Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Hi Guys,

It seems there has been more discussion of career play in this forum recently. Let me address one aspect of turning a small side income into a career.

Suppose you are a Stars $16 grinder, multi-tabling with an ROI of 7% over many games. You should strongly consider playing fewer tables at a higher buyin (bankroll allowing, of course). Doing so will have an uncertain effect on your hourly winrate. This is because:

Playing volume will decrease (=> lower hourly winrate)
Competition generally improves (=> lower ROI)
Fewer tables allows for better decision-making (=> higher ROI)
You are investing a greater amount per game (=> higher $ profit per given ROI)

Combining these variables into a black-and-white result on hourly winrate effects is, unfortunately, not possible.

Regardless of winrate, your fluctuations will increase since you necessarily win more or lose more every game. So if winrate is uncertain, and variance is sure to rise, why should you concentrate on fewer tables at higher buyin?

Because if you are a low-stakes grinder, increasing your buyin is the only way you can achieve a long-term goal of an SNG career (or very substantial side income). You must always be aware of your SNG goals. Perhaps you have other career goals and know you are strictly a hobbyist, or maybe the extra income you get from your present routine is crucial to paying the rent each month and you cannot risk higher swings right now. There is nothing wrong with these scenarios, and I’m certainly not advocating all low-stakes grinders set their sites on an SNG career.

But if you do aspire to be a serious winner, you must consistently strive to move up in stakes (bankroll allowing, see “Sit ‘n Go Business Concepts Summarized” in my book, or simply do a forum search on bankroll discussion). This is accomplished by studying the game, and allowing your strategy to evolve and improve, even if high-volume push-botting at the lower stakes seems a "safer" proposition.

Know your SNG goals, and realize that higher buyin investments are what lead to increased income in the long run.

Good luck guys, and I will take questions in this thread about making a living from SNG play (75%+ of income deriving from SNGs).

Best Regards,
Collin


PS If you are indeed a high-volume low-mid stakes player, PM me if you’re interested in potentially earning some free money/coaching.

Re: Low-Stakes High Volume Players
 

Collin,

Serious question here, not trying to bust your balls. At what point, if ever, did you start regularly or semi-regularly reading this forum?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Will your book tell me how to win coin flips?

Will moving up in stakes magically cause me to even occasionally beat a pair with overcards or overcards with a pair?

Do they have less than 12 aces in the deck at higher stakes?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Man, I wish you were here two years ago. I didn't know that Party had stakes as high as the 22s [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I just knew that all the other pros werent making that much money in the 11s.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Something that surprised me when I switched to sngs was that very few players seem to make a good income. When I first went to the profit leaderboard on Sharkscope, there weren't that many players who were on pace to make 80k/yr. Is this correct?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

I guess my question/response (I know I am new to sng forum) is this:

Isnt it more of a relative question on whether it is more profitable as you move up?

Playing more tables at a lower/easier limit can lead to more profit over playing in higher/tougher games where your winrate goes down enough to cause worse gains than at a lower level.

IIRC, Todd Brunson was a bid advocate in cash games of playing at the most profitable level, not just at the highest level where his winrate was significantly lower?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will your book tell me how to win coin flips?

Will moving up in stakes magically cause me to even occasionally beat a pair with overcards or overcards with a pair?

Do they have less than 12 aces in the deck at higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

pineapple gimmick act?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

I agree in general, but not everyone has moving up to the higher games as a goal. If that is a persons goal, then those steps are right on.

There are some players making $20+/hour at the lower stakes and have been for a long time. Could they make more moving up? Probably, but they would also have larger swings, more losing weeks, etc. Everyone has to decide for themselves where their comfort zones and goals are. If they are happiest playing lots of low limits games a week and making a smaller sum, but making money nearly every week, there really isnt anything wrong with that.

When I was grinding $55's, I made money about 80% of weeks, and went a couple years without ever having a losing month. Playing all the bigger mtt's fulltime now, I make more than twice as much per hour, but I have lots of losing months, and have twice been down over 3 month periods. There's a large emotional tradeoff between the two. I would completely understand anyone that chose to stay in the lower income higher winrate group.

Steve

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Guys,

It seems there has been more discussion of career play in this forum recently. Let me address one aspect of turning a small side income into a career.

Suppose you are a Stars $16 grinder, multi-tabling with an ROI of 7% over many games. You should strongly consider playing fewer tables at a higher buyin (bankroll allowing, of course). Doing so will have an uncertain effect on your hourly winrate. This is because:

Playing volume will decrease (=> lower hourly winrate)
Competition generally improves (=> lower ROI)
Fewer tables allows for better decision-making (=> higher ROI)
You are investing a greater amount per game (=> higher $ profit per given ROI)

Combining these variables into a black-and-white result on hourly winrate effects is, unfortunately, not possible.

Regardless of winrate, your fluctuations will increase since you necessarily win more or lose more every game. So if winrate is uncertain, and variance is sure to rise, why should you concentrate on fewer tables at higher buyin?

Because if you are a low-stakes grinder, increasing your buyin is the only way you can achieve a long-term goal of an SNG career (or very substantial side income). You must always be aware of your SNG goals. Perhaps you have other career goals and know you are strictly a hobbyist, or maybe the extra income you get from your present routine is crucial to paying the rent each month and you cannot risk higher swings right now. There is nothing wrong with these scenarios, and I’m certainly not advocating all low-stakes grinders set their sites on an SNG career.

But if you do aspire to be a serious winner, you must consistently strive to move up in stakes (bankroll allowing, see “Sit ‘n Go Business Concepts Summarized” in my book, or simply do a forum search on bankroll discussion). This is accomplished by studying the game, and allowing your strategy to evolve and improve, even if high-volume push-botting at the lower stakes seems a "safer" proposition.

Know your SNG goals, and realize that higher buyin investments are what lead to increased income in the long run.

Good luck guys, and I will take questions in this thread about making a living from SNG play (75%+ of income deriving from SNGs).

Best Regards,
Collin


PS If you are indeed a high-volume low-mid stakes player, PM me if you’re interested in potentially earning some free money/coaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, doesn't obvious blather plus a PS offering coaching constitute spam?

Mods notified.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will your book tell me how to win coin flips?

Will moving up in stakes magically cause me to even occasionally beat a pair with overcards or overcards with a pair?

Do they have less than 12 aces in the deck at higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

pineapple gimmick act?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] That would be a whole lotta posts for a gimmick acct.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Rusty, it is certainly the minority of SNG pros making $80k+ a year. Keep in mind that not all of the big winners are full-time SNGers, and could be making much more by increasing hours/week.

mattnxtc writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Playing more tables at a lower/easier limit can lead to more profit over playing in higher/tougher games where your winrate goes down enough to cause worse gains than at a lower level.

IIRC, Todd Brunson was a bid advocate in cash games of playing at the most profitable level, not just at the highest level where his winrate was significantly lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you increase buyin and not only does your ROI decrease, but also your $/game, then you should certainly not stay at that level. However, if you spend more time concentrating on fewer games, studying more, etc. then you will usually be able to beat the higher games. This is particularly true in SNG play, where a $6 grinder with a sudden bankroll increase could find solid investments playing $100+ using vigilant table selection.

Lacky writes:

"Everyone has to decide for themselves where their comfort zones and goals are. If they are happiest playing lots of low limits games a week and making a smaller sum, but making money nearly every week, there really isnt anything wrong with that."

That is an excellent point which I address in my original post. While I wouldn't classify $55's as "low-stakes" (I was thinking $20's and below), factors such as risk aversion and other career/moneymaking options could make a perpetual quest to increase game investment contrary to your goals.

And Guthrie, the art of winning coin flips comes down to screaming "No deuce!" loudly at your monitor. Works regardless of your hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Collin

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will your book tell me how to win coin flips?

Will moving up in stakes magically cause me to even occasionally beat a pair with overcards or overcards with a pair?

Do they have less than 12 aces in the deck at higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

pineapple gimmick act?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] That would be a whole lotta posts for a gimmick acct.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha...Guthrie is no pineapple. Pineapple was winning player that eventually had a long downswing resulting in bustoness(?).

Guthrie, I believe, has just always pretty much been downswinging or breakeven. He is one of the unlucky ones who was given a rigged account when he signed up at all poker sites he has played.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]


the art of winning coin flips comes down to screaming "No deuce!" loudly at your monitor. Works regardless of your hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the opposite of what I recommend.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good luck guys, and I will take questions in this thread about making a living from SNG play (75%+ of income deriving from SNGs).

[/ QUOTE ]

What volume of play (SNG's per month) does it take to "make a living" under the following conditions?

a) 12-tabling low buy-in turbos (below $20) on a major site
b) 4-tabling high buy-in regulars (above $100) on a major site
c) 3-tabling very high turbos/regulars (above $200) on any site
d) x-tabling mid-level SNGs (~$55) on any site... define x.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Hi Slim,

Here is a general answer for required monthly playing volume to hit your target SNG income.

Assumptions:
A decent living is $L/year.
If you N-table you can average around 1.5 N games per hour.
You work H hours per month, 12 months per year.
Your ROI at your buy-in of choice, B, is R% when you are N-tabling.

(R, in turn, is a function of N, B, and other factors such as your ever-changing competition. If you want to determine R based on these factors, I'd recommend a forum search.)

Math:

Then you play 12 x H x 1.5N = 18 x N x H games per year

Each game you profit B x R/100 $/game

Multiplying these last two terms and setting equal to $L tells us ...

Result:

H =

$L
-------
18 x N x (B R/100)

Example:

So for instance, if you can average 9% ROI 4-tabling the $55's and want to make $50k/year, you would need to work $50k / (18 x 4 x $55 x .09)
~ 140 hours. So you would have to average 140 hours a month of straight playing to hit your goal in this case, which equates to roughly 35 hrs/week if you include inevitable short breaks during the day.

The above formula for H is the general answer for how many hours/month you need to work to hit your target SNG income.
Clearly it oversimplifies -- R, for instance, will vary over the course of a year as you improve, face tougher competition, etc. But plug numbers into the above formula for H, and you have a rough idea of required playing volume to achieve your target yearly SNG income.

Best Regards,
Collin

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

IMO this is highly player dependant, I would bring the same game to a higher level as I have at my current one. I don't think my game is affected much if at all by multitabling since I have been grinding for some time and slowly increased the amount of tables I play at once. My ROI would decrease, my amount of tables hourly would decrease, and I don't think extra attention would help anywhere near enough to make up for this. If it would work for others I don't know but I'm almost positive it would be a poor decision on my part. Studying until I am beating my current game well enough to justify moving up with the same amount of tables is just a better choice.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]

PS If you are indeed a high-volume low-mid stakes player, PM me if you’re interested in potentially earning some free money/coaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please dont advertise "free money". Its tacky and ultimately BS.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

I've looked into this whole moving up thing in Stars 9-man turbos a few times before and, unless everyone's hidden themselves on Sharkscope, there's not a whole lot of money being made up there. Anyone regularly pulling 10% at the $60's 8-tabling or more these days?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


the art of winning coin flips comes down to screaming "No deuce!" loudly at your monitor. Works regardless of your hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the opposite of what I recommend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Negativity is bad. It is better to scream "Dealer, I need an ace!" at the monitor.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Collin - when you talk about reducing the number of tables you play and increasing your focus, how many tables are you thinking about? I'm curious how many tables you think an average player could play at once and maintain the level of focus you're referring to.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Kevin writes:

[ QUOTE ]
My ROI would decrease, my amount of tables hourly would decrease, and I don't think extra attention would help anywhere near enough to make up for this ... Studying until I am beating my current game well enough to justify moving up with the same amount of tables is just a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, all SNG decisions are player-dependent.
However, I strongly disagree that your ROI would decrease. Also, studying can be particularly effective while you are actually playing (e.g., verbalizing the thought process, verifying you made a correct push/fold decision immediately after the fact with ICM software, etc.)

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

Venetian, there are certainly ample players hitting 10%+ ROI at $55's+, but I think few are 8-tabling (some certainly, but a minority). If you are looking to increase your ROI, the point of my post is you may want to consider decreasing the number of tables you're playing. It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kevin writes:

[ QUOTE ]
My ROI would decrease, my amount of tables hourly would decrease, and I don't think extra attention would help anywhere near enough to make up for this ... Studying until I am beating my current game well enough to justify moving up with the same amount of tables is just a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, all SNG decisions are player-dependent.
However, I strongly disagree that your ROI would decrease. Also, studying can be particularly effective while you are actually playing (e.g., verbalizing the thought process, verifying you made a correct push/fold decision immediately after the fact with ICM software, etc.)

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

Venetian, there are certainly ample players hitting 10%+ ROI at $55's+, but I think few are 8-tabling (some certainly, but a minority). If you are looking to increase your ROI, the point of my post is you may want to consider decreasing the number of tables you're playing. It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I thought you meant that if someone takes up your coaching they would as a result get free money.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Collin, I think you're seriously underestimating how much money can be made grinding the low limits.

I was making $30/hr(also counting 300 breakeven games at the $24s) before taking rakeback into account 12 tabling $12s on Full Tilt. This was all done with very small swings, the knowledge that I was easily the best player at every table I sat at, and getting in a lot of volume. When I play in sets or few tables I tilt easier and take much more frequent breaks. When 12 tabling continuously I could grind for several hours at a time just because there is constantly something going on.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Collin,

Again, when did you start reading this forum?

I've long been a proponent of fewer tables and more studying as the best way to improve at sngs. But it's been at least 2.5 yrs since 4 tabling was considered anything but beginner multitabling.

Also, I've been told by spacegravy that basically nobody is doing >10% at the 60s while 8+ tabling. This is not to say that it can't be done, but that it's very very difficult to do in the current sng climate.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Pomoting your site AND offering coaching in a low-content post. Well played!

Well, if the mods don't care, on we go.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Collin,

Again, when did you start reading this forum?

I've long been a proponent of fewer tables and more studying as the best way to improve at sngs. But it's been at least 2.5 yrs since 4 tabling was considered anything but beginner multitabling.

Also, I've been told by spacegravy that basically nobody is doing >10% at the 60s while 8+ tabling. This is not to say that it can't be done, but that it's very very difficult to do in the current sng climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, bones. You are offering actual content in this post. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

Hasn't allways been the case that no-one really stays with SNG's all that long after learning to beat them soundly????

It appears that their are much higher limitations to how much you can earn playing SNG's as opposed to tourmanent or cash play, a wall/ceiling if you will.

I personally am trying to build a roll to give NL HE cash games a solid attempt. I honestly don't expect to move past the 27's before I do this.

Certainly there are a select few that appear to be quite comfortable in their limits and SNG's and are definately earning a decent living from them but it I personally don't see myself playing the same level of them 12-24 months.


How many people are considering playing SNG's here on a career level????

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

There is like 0 difference between 4 and 8 tabling. Anyone that thinks there is has never heard of PAHUD.

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will take questions in this thread about making a living from SNG play (75%+ of income deriving from SNGs).

[/ QUOTE ]

How much of this 75% is from actually playing them?
And would encouraging a lot of shot-takers to move up help this number in any way?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Slim,

Here is a general answer for required monthly playing volume to hit your target SNG income.

Assumptions:
A decent living is $L/year.
If you N-table you can average around 1.5 N games per hour.
You work H hours per month, 12 months per year.
Your ROI at your buy-in of choice, B, is R% when you are N-tabling.

(R, in turn, is a function of N, B, and other factors such as your ever-changing competition. If you want to determine R based on these factors, I'd recommend a forum search.)

Math:

Then you play 12 x H x 1.5N = 18 x N x H games per year

Each game you profit B x R/100 $/game

Multiplying these last two terms and setting equal to $L tells us ...

Result:

H =

$L
-------
18 x N x (B R/100)

Example:

So for instance, if you can average 9% ROI 4-tabling the $55's and want to make $50k/year, you would need to work $50k / (18 x 4 x $55 x .09)
~ 140 hours. So you would have to average 140 hours a month of straight playing to hit your goal in this case, which equates to roughly 35 hrs/week if you include inevitable short breaks during the day.

The above formula for H is the general answer for how many hours/month you need to work to hit your target SNG income.
Clearly it oversimplifies -- R, for instance, will vary over the course of a year as you improve, face tougher competition, etc. But plug numbers into the above formula for H, and you have a rough idea of required playing volume to achieve your target yearly SNG income.

Best Regards,
Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

the funny part is i don't know if you are kidding or serious. you really think Slim or anyone that reads the forum does not know how to calculate this stuff?

Re: Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play
 

I just think it's interesting that when you look at the CardPlayer/Sharkscope total profit numbers (Stars only) for people playing single tables less than $100 buyin, the top two are 6-max specialists, #3 and #5 are turbo $16 grinders, and #4 has a 7% ROI at the $60's over the last six months.

Doesn't get me excited about playing less tables at a higher buy-in.