Observations from Official Poker Rankings

[NateAvenson]

Ok, so I posted this morning spent the day on the lake and just got back online. before I left I PM'd Shaundeeb and Thay3r and asked them to respond. I hoped they would, but they haven't yet. Anyway, just a few quick notes before I hit the hay. I'm pretty drunk so sorry if I ramble, am incoherent, etc.

1) Hours per day and multi-tabling. I play two sessions basically everyday, unless I have something more pressing. One in the AM one in the PM, except Sundays when I try to play as much of the day as possible. For each session I try to play 4 games that start at the same time or atleast within a half hour. This is my summer schedual. Winters are dull here (MN) so def play more then. I have played as many as 9 at a time, but found that doing so is not nearly ar +EV. I start out LAG so often(often enough anyway) I bust in one before the first break. 3 seems to be the perfect number for me, I am able to focus just enough to get a read so that I can play the players and not just my cards. Some sessions are short. Busting at the bubble just before or after the 2nd break is fairly common. In the winter, I would start a new session at this point, but in the summer I just stand up and go outside. When I do get deep in a tournament the session gets longer, 5-6 hours to make a FT is def a reality and something you should take in mind before starting any tournament. Make sure you don't have school/work etc. starting before the tournament ends. If I had to take a stab at some sort of avg, I would say that a bad day would take 4 hours, and a great day would take 12-13, but most days take 6-8 (3-4) each session. Like I said before, If you want to make a living at MTT's a day of poker will start to feel a lot like a day at work. One nice thing about logging this many hours I have found, is that beats are a lot easier to take, because they happen EVERY SINGLE DAY. I used to get very upset when someone sucked out on me "f$%$#ing Donkey, nice suckput!" etc. Now I just sya "lol donkaments, gg gl all" and move on. a suckout, afterall, comes when someone gets there money in REAL bad, something you should be happy about. Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, 6-8 hours a day, mostly 4 tables and down.

2)Buy-ins. Yeah, 1-2%. I think 1% is a great rule of thumb, but when you have a $100 roll, goodluck finding 10 MTT's to play each day for $1 or less, let alone 2 that start w/in a half hour of each other. If you have been playing for some time and are confident in your MTT game, I think it would be wise and safe to invest $1000 of outside money into your BR so you have a wider range of games/starting times available to you. A side note about satelites. I learned a painful lesson recently and turned it into a new rule for myself. Do not buy into satelites for touraments that have bigger entry fees than your 1% limit. Here is why, say the satelite costs 1% of your roll and the seat it pays is worth 50% of your roll. You play 10 of these satelites and win the seat. Not real likely but plausable since you needed to finish top 2%. Now you play the tournament you just won into and don't make the money(happens 80%+ even if you are good) Bye bye 10% of roll. Repeat four times in one day and feel my pain. A lot of hard work down the tubes.

3) ROI. It's hard to say what is good here. OBV > 0% is necissary. If you wanted to make a decent living playing $5 buy-ins you would need it to bee somewhere around 200%, LOL good luck. I chart my results and have noticed something interesting. If you play 1% buyins to games with 2000 players, a first place finish will rocket your ROI up 400%, sustainable? not even close. But it shows why 1st place finishes are so important. That 400% takes you to a new level. But there is a peak BR requirement for online MTT play. Hopefully someone like Shaun can show this. For the top players, the problem lies in there not being enough $100 plus buy-ins. And you only need a BR of $10,000 to play those very confortably. I would say that if your ROI is around 50% you are playing great and have little to worry about. If it is less, you probably have some room for improvement, most likely in your final table play. Look at the payouts for first through fourth and note how many buyins they are equal to and the difference between taking 4th out of 2000 and 1st out of 2000 to see what I mean. Final table play is what seperates the 100% ROI's from the 25% ROI's. Which is why playing so many MTT's is so important. You need to make a lot of final tables so it becomes as normal feeling as the beats. After makeing many many final tables you will not play scared anymore, you will be able to play to win, making the bold moves necessary for being #1. If you are maintaining a 100% + ROI over a few thousand MTT's I think it is safe to say you are among the top 1% of MTT players.

4)Bottom line(s). If you want to play MTT's for a living GL. It won't be easy, and after a few hundred tourneys it's almost not fun anymore. It's work. Hard work. You have to play everyday, read books everyday, participate in forums, keep records, take notes, and deal with the making mistakes, the b%$#h called variance and much, much more. And the pay starts of terribly. Even with a $1000 starting roll and a %50 ROI, playing 4 tables at a time, you are still only making $5 an hour. And if you are just starting, that 50% ROI is a goal, not your reality. But stick with it day in and day out, through all the ups and downs, and I think it is safe to say that after 5 years, give or take, you will be making a %100 ROI and $100 an hour playing your $100 ABI's just like the rest of the top 1%. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[PoineDexter]

As to number of hours. That is not how many hours you play in a session that is AVERAGE number of hours you need to play per day for 30 days (one month). Eventually you want to compare this to Joe Lunchbox who works 37.5 hours. As it stands we say that there are 4 weeks in a month (28 days) and there are 10 weekend days leaving 18 work days. This is not exact as there are 4.3 weeks in a month but just for fun here. Joe Lunchbox works 37.5 x 4 = 150 hours to make his 36K whereas MTT poker pro works about 100 hours to make the same 36K based on our assumptions in the thread. So he gets a five day weekend every week. Nice.

NateAvenson... you seem to agree with a lot of the items BigAlK and I have outlined. Thanks for the feedback. Your results should be about 4800 games played per year to earn a "decent living". For you that's 1600 man games = 3200 hours divided by 220 "work" days per year = 14 hrs per day. You have only one variable to work with and that's ABI. Get it up to $20.00 (4 factor) and you can take every Thursday and Friday off!

You understand the numbers and what is involved and choose to pursue this and that is good. At least you are informed.

[bogey1]

Agree with the various observations. I played cash ring for a long time, up to 20/40 (mostly on UB at the time). I crushed for a while....then tanked for a while. You can make serious $/hr in ring games, but the variance is murder.

I switched to SNG's, 1 table, 6-max, $35 buyins. I'm about 29% ROI over 1000 games. $10 a game or so, but it's non-turbo so the average game is 45-60 minutes. I could probably make a decent living at those, but it'd be a pay cut from my real job and way more stress. I'd have to play 40 or so a day and I don't multi-table beyond 3 tournies. Even 3 tables is tough on 6-max tables because there's always 1 or 2 that are really 2-4 handed.

However, variance in the SNGs was almost non-existant. Well, in comparison to ring games anyway. I quite happily ground out a few thousand $ in SNGs before burnout.

Now I'm trying the $60 45-man turbos. Still quick, but if I could get 30% ROI on those, the $/hr really looks good. Variance is a bitch again though...

[BigAlK]

Nate,

Lots of good stuff here. Having lived in MN I even understand the long days in winter and short in summer thing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It sounds like you actually do this for a living and have a good handle on this. Keeping track of hours played has never been a part of my routine. It sounds like your numbers there are more realistic than what we've discussed so far.

I wanted to expand a bit on what you've said about satellites. IMO for someone who is building their bankroll with a goal of moving up to higher buy-ins they can be a two-edged sword. I'm most familiar with what is available on Full Tilt so I'll talk specifically about what I've found there. Those who play other sites would need to adapt my thoughts where possible to the actual structures on their normal site.

Playing sats requires skills that are sometimes different than regular MTTs. (There are some excellent posts scattered thru 2+2, some linked in the FAQ on this.) I believe developing these skills is important for a serious MTTer. The danger you describe is a real one. Part of the danger is that you're paying to learn these skills thru buy-ins that when you win the seat gives you an entry in a higher buy-in tournament that you are most likely -EV in based on your current buy-in/skill level (this assumes that you are +EV at your normal buy-in and the buy-in for the sat is close to your normal buy-in).

However I believe sats can be a valuable aid for building a bankroll and gaining experience at a higher level if a conservative approach is used. They are are also necessary for learning and practice of satellite strategy which I believe is a necessary skill for an MTTer to have. I'm generally a nit when it comes to playing outside of my bankroll. The exception is satellites (and the tournaments I play where I've satted in) which is somewhat more aggressive. I'm going to outline an approach that is roughly the one I've taken and found successful. YMMV.

First you've got to realize that sats have to be a relatively small percentage of the tournaments you play. The sats and the tournaments you sat into will likely be a drag on your bankroll in the short term, however I believe the practice it gives you in playing at a higher level is a positive long term. Because of this I'd advise picking a limited number of tournaments to attempt to sat into (maybe one a week) and setting a limit to the amount you'll spend to do so.

If you can beat regular MTTs at a specific buy-in I've found that you can also beat sats at that same buy-in (assuming you make the correct strategic adjustments). My approach is to only play sats at my normal buy-in. On FTP that means playing the 18 seat SnGs ($6-8 buy-in) to win a "token" good for entry into a $24+2 if your normal buy-in is $5-10) and so on. It also means not playing a sat at my normal buy-in that wins me a seat into another sat for a still bigger tournament. Sats on Full Tilt are generally fairly small fields and I'd stay away from the few large field sats (token frenzy for example) because of the larger variance. I also prefer sats that award seats to a higher % of the players. This decreases variance and also keeps the tournaments you sat into closer to your normal buy-in.

I understand that some sites (Poker Stars) allows you to win a seat and then withdraw from the tournament for $T which you can use to enter other tournaments. Doing that might be the best move some or most of the time. Full Tilt doesn't allow this, however with the exception of the token sats if you win a 2nd seat to the same tournament you're credited with the buy-in in real $. If you can beat these sats then playing additional sats after winning a seat can be an excellent chance to use your satellite skills to increase your bankroll in what I believe has become a +EV, low variance opportunity.

Al

[NateAvenson]

More on Sats (Moron sats...lol).

Al,
You make some good points. I play on FTP as well and am familiar with there insane amount of sats. Token sats are great for all the reasons you listed. A $6.60 buy-in for a $26 pay out means high patout %. $26 isn't very high above the $6-$8 range so the tourn you sat into will have simularly skilled players. But I think the frenzies are the most +EV. They are turbo, which gives them slight -EV, but the number of players more than makes up for it. The benefit of added players is that there are multiple tables going at the time of the bubble (like 16-20) compared to just one. Which means 16-20 people sitting as the short stack at their table, just waiting to bust. Here is my stategy for frenzies. Start out slightly loose aggressive (it is turbo after all) don't be afraid to put it all in on a coinflip. eg. IIn regular MTT I am not calling an all-in with AKs early on, in a frenzie, I am doing it everytime. Try to double up twice and get your stack to about 6x the starting stack, then switch it off. Go ultra TAG. pick up the blinds once per cycle and just coast to the bubble.When the bubble arrives you should be in the top 40-50% easily. Then completly shut off. get up and walk away. Come back in 10 minutes and collect.

I guess sats are ok in moderation, the day I blew 38% of my roll I played 95% sats. I should have realized how it would end, or likely end anyway, long before I began. I think your idea of only satting to one tourn a week is a good idea. Also setting a limit to the number of attempts you will make.

FTP has changed their Sat rules a bit though. You can now sat into the same event infinate times, and in fact are encouraged to do so. They will pay you cash for each additional entry plus whoever wins the most sats into an event wins a prize. The exception is the bigger WSOP WCOOP FTOPS type sats, for these you get W$ that you must use in simular touraments.

This has been a decent thread so far, I wish some of the top 1% would contribute as we are making a lot of assumptions and it would be nice to see them verified or refuted.

[kindling]

I play on PS, so I was surprised at the idea of not playing a satellite for a tourney you wouldn't otherwise buy into. Most agree that this is a great bankroll builder, because on stars you can unregister for the tourney, and get T$. You can use these to play any tourney or SNG, and even sell for close to 100% cash. Additionally, since the payout is flat once ITM, you don't have the stress of getting to the final table before the $ means something.

It sounds like FullTilt operates differently, so it's probably a lot less desirable to play a sat to a $200 tourney without a $20k bankroll. On Stars, most would recommend playing the $3R or $11fo as good bankroll builders, and many seem to like the $11R or $39fo for the $215 Sunday tourneys since they pay so many seats, so they should be lower variance.

Regards,
Kindling

[kindling]

[ QUOTE ]

This has been a decent thread so far, I wish some of the top 1% would contribute as we are making a lot of assumptions and it would be nice to see them verified or refuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are probably over in High Stakes MTT.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
FTP has changed their Sat rules a bit though. You can now sat into the same event infinate times, and in fact are encouraged to do so. They will pay you cash for each additional entry plus whoever wins the most sats into an event wins a prize. The exception is the bigger WSOP WCOOP FTOPS type sats, for these you get W$ that you must use in simular touraments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

You're probably right about the token frenzy, if you adapt correctly they're probably +EV.

Are you sure about these FTP sat changes? I agree that you can win infinite times and get cash for all but your initial seat. The satellite challenge promotion (where you win an additional prize for winning the most sats) is also added EV if you're decent at sats. One week I played all the sats I could for the (then) 400k guarantee. It was profitable due to winning several seats as well as a small bonus for 2nd in the challenge.

But I can't find anything about $W. There isn't a place to record them in the cashier window and if you look at their website they talk about the sat challenge in regards to the FTOPs tournaments where they say they pay out in cash. I think $W are just on stars. (FT was also paying out cash for ALL WSOP seats including the initial one this year).

Al

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This has been a decent thread so far, I wish some of the top 1% would contribute as we are making a lot of assumptions and it would be nice to see them verified or refuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are probably over in High Stakes MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we're defining top 1% based on OPR ranking then I qualify. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But the people you really want, yeah, they're in HSMTT.

[PoineDexter]

Check this out. I want to be this guy. "hannibalrex"

Check out the Official Rankings on this guy. There has to be more to the story than this but...

He dabbles in micro/low-limit. His only other high buy-in was one $215 and then he 2nds on a $2600.00 for 632K payoff! That's who the fish all want to be. He then plays micro/low again and his biggest game after that was a $475 which he won in a $58 sat (his biggest buy-in after his big win).

Like I say there must be more to the story than this and the results from that $2600.00 tournament are a little odd but it is still funny!

I wonder what he did with the 632K?