Moving Up In Stakes
 

I know most people suggest having 100 buyins for SNG play due to the variance involved. But at the lower stakes, people seem bad enough that even with small leaks in my own game it is +EV to play higher stakes than my bankroll can allow. Based on your experience would you say that the $15 sngs can be beat on a bankroll of 30 buyins? 40 buyins? For a regular at those limits what is your biggest downswing buyin wise?

I was a regular in the $3 sngs for awhile and found the rake and 10 people to lower my ROI. I have moved up to $6s with great success over 300+ games. I am thinking about moving up to the 15s by the end of the year and don't want to have a high risk of ruin.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

You need a much bigger sample size IMO... 300+ games isn't nearly big enough to accurately gauge it.

That being said... what's your BR like right now? I'd say if it's above 50 BI at $6, you can maybe move up, then if you drop below 50 BI @ $6, you can/should move back down to grind some more.

Honestly though, I would put in a lot more time at the $6 first to get a good idea of your ROI/ROR and go from there. If anything, it will also help build your BR for the move up to $15's.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I am in the same shoes as you. I am mega over rolled for the 6.50s and the 3.40s but i still play them because
1. I know i make money at them
2. You can learn while making money, as opposed to learning and breaking even, or losing at the 16s.

Just take a few months at the 6.50s, post lots of hands, maybe learn to play a couple more tables, then move up.

EDIT: oops, read op wrong. I thing moving up depends on how easily you are able to move back down. If you are decent at it then take a 10 or 20 buyins at the 16s out of your normal roll, leaving 50 or so buyins for the 6.50s and run with it. Just be willing to step back if things go iffy.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

any level of SNG can be beat forever on a BR of 1 buyin if you get lucky enough... its all about your risk of ruin, what % chance are you willing to allow that you will go broke?

If you are playing low stakes SNGs and dont need the money to survive and think you could maybe beat higher games you can gamble it up in spots where your ROR is high, as long as you think your ROI is positive

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a regular at those limits what is your biggest downswing buyin wise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Around 90.

It doesn't matter how bad, or good, your opponents are once the chips go in the middle. You can easily lose 15 straight with the best hand. A few of those can ruin your day.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a regular at those limits what is your biggest downswing buyin wise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Around 90.

It doesn't matter how bad, or good, your opponents are once the chips go in the middle. You can easily lose 15 straight with the best hand. A few of those can ruin your day.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 90 buyin downswing is not at all standard. Thats gotta be close to impossible if you are playing well the entire time.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I think my biggest downswing in the $16s is around 25 buyins over a significant sample

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I think he meant 90$ downswing, as for 15 buy-ins

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

If you want to keep your risk of ruin low, don't be too vain to move down if you run bad. Play the higher level and leave 30 buy-ins at the next lower level behind. Drop down when you hit this 30 buy-in mark. Playing a lower level until you have 100 buy-ins at the next highest level is very wasteful of your time if you indend to move up eventually.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I once dropped 700 bucks at the 24s.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I just don't understand why people are such nits when it comes to bankroll management.

Obviously it's important to have a safety factor so that you don't go broke. But, you don't not need huge rolls to take shots or move up.

Personally, I never had more than 50 buy-ins for any stakes until I reached the $55s. I was usually betweent 20-30 and taking shots at higher stakes in there.

I'm still not hugely rolled for the stakes I play. Between 50-75 buyins and I've never ever been close to busto.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Meh, 50 is plenty for people who are smart about it and know when to move down and when to take shots. One hundred buyins is pretty formulaic/math based and doesn't take into consideration the common sense factor of the player...

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he meant 90$ downswing, as for 15 buy-ins

[/ QUOTE ]

No, 90 buy-ins. A 15 buy-in downswing was the start of a normal day. On one memorable day in September, I was called the first time I pushed in the first 15 tournies, and lost every one of them, 12, as I recall, with the best hand.

You can talk all you want about ICM and putting people on ranges, but eventually you have to push, and when I push, I get called, and when I get called, I lose. I am continually amazed at how people can consistently win all-ins regardless of the cards going in, but that appears to be what's required to be a winning player.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2...aygraphkm5.png

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Oh, my bad then ! Didn't think it was that bad actually

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

A 90 buyin downswing would be brutal. However, I'm a little bit skeptical that it can happen purely by variance. I'm not a statistician but I can do a few things with stats, and I suspect 90 buyins just on random fluctuations would be way way way way off into the left tail of the normal curve. Like, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Yeah, some bad play right there.
I mean, we're talking a 3000 tournies losing strek here.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, some bad play right there.
I mean, we're talking a 3000 tournies losing strek here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly know that? Did you look at my HHs? Several people have, and none of them has identified any glaring errors. One actually wrote back and said, "don't just send the HHs where you got called the first time you pushed, then lost, send some where you actually played." So I had to search to find some of those to send him.

Over 5K 16s, 39.54% of all my PF pushes were called. What kind of range to I put people on to avoid that? When called, I lost 54.27%. What kind of skill level is required to change that?

We've been through this before, and I'm not going to change any minds, so believe whatever you like.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

when you hit insane variance its super easy to play slightly bad tighten up to much make one extra call every 20 sNGs. i had a 100 buy in down swing however im not the greatest SNG player. ive ran over 15 roi for 1k sNGs on full tilt a few times.

over the 9k ive played im only like 3-4 roi which sucks.

In short i play a ton of SNGs i suck run hot run bad

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

You lose over 3000 SNGs (big time, I might add), you play poorly.
Sorry, but either you were constantly tilting, or you aren't as good as you think you are.

Over 5k 16s your pushes won't be called significantly more often than would anyone else at that level. That is, unless all the mongtards of the 16s formed a conspiracy to start spite calling you.

Also, I have no idea of what a good number of preflop all-ins won % is, but I have a feeling you are pushing too wide. Maybe that's your major leak.

Choose to blame it all on the worst luck since that lorry driver guy from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or choose to improve.
I really don't care.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I don't have your hand histories, guth, so i can't comment on your play, but statistically, i think it's very unlikely that a 90BI downswing is just variance. It may have started with a really brutal downswing of just variance, maybe 25BI's or 30BI's, after which you subconciously changed your game and did not play the same way. It's not an accusation at you, because 95% of players would do the same thing imo if they hit a brutal strech. But if i had the stats on the overall variance and stuff of SnG tournaments, i suspect that a solid winner with maybe 8% ROI would be very very very unlikely to ever run that bad.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Arguing this with Guthrie is redundant. it's happened time and time again. He is one of the unlucky ones with a rigged account.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

FGators ran bad over 1.6million hands, it can happen.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Over 5K 16s, 39.54% of all my PF pushes were called. What kind of range to I put people on to avoid that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd put people on top 39.54% ...

[ QUOTE ]
When called, I lost 54.27%. What kind of skill level is required to change that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Push top 45.72% (vs top 39.54% range) or less ...

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Does how many tables you play have any effect on ROR.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does how many tables you play have any effect on ROR.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, assuming your ROI remains intact.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

if the possibility of a 90 buy-in dawnswing is 1 to 100.000 it isn't impossible that somone have it... i think it is possible, very unlucky but possible.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think he meant 90$ downswing, as for 15 buy-ins

[/ QUOTE ]

No, 90 buy-ins. A 15 buy-in downswing was the start of a normal day. On one memorable day in September, I was called the first time I pushed in the first 15 tournies, and lost every one of them, 12, as I recall, with the best hand.

You can talk all you want about ICM and putting people on ranges, but eventually you have to push, and when I push, I get called, and when I get called, I lose. I am continually amazed at how people can consistently win all-ins regardless of the cards going in, but that appears to be what's required to be a winning player.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2...aygraphkm5.png

[/ QUOTE ]

if i was break even over 7000 sng's, i'd find a different way to play, a different game to play, or a different hobby.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
if i was break even over 7000 sng's, i'd find a different way to play, a different game to play, or a different hobby.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't quit now. Surely due for a sick heater to even out all the bad luck.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Assuming your graph is entirely from the $16s, you seem to have some sort of massive leaks causing huge variance. I could be wrong but you seem to have very common massive downswing spikes for huge amounts of money. Even in the beginning when you were winning big you had large drop offs. I don't think most good ROI players have such huge variations in winnings over and over.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I had a 110 buyin downswing at the 60's earlier this year and I'm one of the best at that level. I was making a few mistakes but there's no way I was a losing player at that time.

A low stakes casual player shouldn't need more than 50 buy ins. Just remember the higher you move up the less your ROI will be and the more padding your bankroll will need.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I grinded my bankroll on bonuswhoring and silly cash games and just couple of months ago started playing only sng's but nowadays I run 50's with over 500BI bankroll and I'm just starting to play 100's.

No matter how big my bankroll is the swings keep making me sick sometimes! I coulnd't never even try imagine playing with less than 100BI br

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then maybe you should stop popping off about something you know absolutely nothing about.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this with Guthrie is redundant. it's happened time and time again. He is one of the unlucky ones with a rigged account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people might think that moderators should refrain from making snide remarks, repeatedly.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming your graph is entirely from the $16s, you seem to have some sort of massive leaks causing huge variance. I could be wrong but you seem to have very common massive downswing spikes for huge amounts of money. Even in the beginning when you were winning big you had large drop offs. I don't think most good ROI players have such huge variations in winnings over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 16s in the beginning, then about half 16s and half 27s, running about 8%. Then I moved back to the 16s, then finally to the 6.50s.

Everyone likes to talk about leaks, tilt, whatever. No one who has ever looked at my HHs has ever identified any massive, or even substantial leaks, just a few minor things, such as limping pocket pairs early, which I changed, then watched my results plummet even further.

If I'm pushing from the SB with +5% EV against any reasonable range, I don't see how tilt could affect that decision either way. Once the chips are in the middle, neither tilt, leaks, or skill can affect the outcome.

But let's humor the arrogant jerks and assume that I do have massive leaks, or, in other words, I'm a terrible fish. Why didn't my graph start out moving steadily downward? Why does it move up, then nose dive, then steadily move up before taking another nosedive? What kind of leak causes someone to win steadily for a few days, then lose almost every all-in for days? What kind of skill set should I learn to prevent losing those all-ins?

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming your graph is entirely from the $16s, you seem to have some sort of massive leaks causing huge variance. I could be wrong but you seem to have very common massive downswing spikes for huge amounts of money. Even in the beginning when you were winning big you had large drop offs. I don't think most good ROI players have such huge variations in winnings over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 16s in the beginning, then about half 16s and half 27s, running about 8%. Then I moved back to the 16s, then finally to the 6.50s.

Everyone likes to talk about leaks, tilt, whatever. No one who has ever looked at my HHs has ever identified any massive, or even substantial leaks, just a few minor things, such as limping pocket pairs early, which I changed, then watched my results plummet even further.

If I'm pushing from the SB with +5% EV against any reasonable range, I don't see how tilt could affect that decision either way. Once the chips are in the middle, neither tilt, leaks, or skill can affect the outcome.

But let's humor the arrogant jerks and assume that I do have massive leaks, or, in other words, I'm a terrible fish. Why didn't my graph start out moving steadily downward? Why does it move up, then nose dive, then steadily move up before taking another nosedive? What kind of leak causes someone to win steadily for a few days, then lose almost every all-in for days? What kind of skill set should I learn to prevent losing those all-ins?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop at game 3950 obv.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had a 110 buyin downswing at the 60's earlier this year and I'm one of the best at that level.

[/ QUOTE ]
what makes anyone think they're best?
stop lying to yourself.
it just doesn't help.
clearly 7k sngs even can't happen to a decent player at the 16s where the avg skill is ridiculously low + a 110 downswing is close to impossible when you're one of the best at your stake.
i would never call myself one of the very best at the stakes i play because saying that makes seems to make you arrogant and lazy about your game.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I'd really like it if somebody could take all of their results and figure out their ROI variance and run some numbers on this stuff. As far as i can tell, everyone's variance for SnG's should be in the same neighborhood (maybe not exactly), even with expected ROI's that are very different. I wonder what can of variance and standard deviation a SnG player has on his ROI and what that means for a 10K games sample.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like it if somebody could take all of their results and figure out their ROI variance and run some numbers on this stuff. As far as i can tell, everyone's variance for SnG's should be in the same neighborhood (maybe not exactly), even with expected ROI's that are very different. I wonder what can of variance and standard deviation a SnG player has on his ROI and what that means for a 10K games sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

The higher the ROI the lower the variance.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Guthrie, how much of the end of that graph is 6.5s? If you're even breakeven at 27s you should be crushing the 6.5s.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Someone once posted a link to a calculator that calculated the odds that your true ROI was (whatever) based on winnings or losing over a certain number of games. Anyone know what I'm talking about?