Future of sng's online? - Page 4

JSH06 · #31 10-04-2007, 04:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure it's a typo and he meant 100k/yr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think he meant per month. I could see this being possible with rakeback on Party considering you could probably sustain a 10% ROI at $500s back in the day. I didn't play all that much on Party though so I don't know how much the high stakes games ran.

tigerite · #32 10-04-2007, 05:03 AM

He means per month. Hell when I used to 8-table the $215s for 3-4 hours a day, part-time, I managed over $20k a month and I wasn't even that good.

As for spite-calling, that's ALWAYS been evident and used to happen to me all the time too. It's quite simple really, you just reduce your pushing range, or in other words, adapt.

7_toolz · #33 10-04-2007, 05:07 AM

lots of good input guys.

I am thinking of playing the 33's on a $2500 roll. You guys think its possible to obtain a 10% ROI 4 to 6 tabling for adecent ( grade: B-,B) player? Is 10% too ambitious?

JSH06 · #34 10-04-2007, 05:11 AM

[quote

As for spite-calling, that's ALWAYS been evident and used to happen to me all the time too. It's quite simple really, you just reduce your pushing range, or in other words, adapt.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

braminc · #35 10-04-2007, 05:44 AM

please allow me to chime in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think there are lots of overrated SNGers from the party days who simply havent adjusted well to the change of the games. Suzzer speaks like one of those people (though i have no clue if he is...). I personally feel like the games havent gotten any tougher since one year ago (beginning of UIGEA) and they might even have gotten slightly softer...?

10% at the 33s are you speaking of turbo or regular? regular 10% is definitely achievable. If turbo, then its only achievable by the better players, but with just 4 tables shouldnt be out of reach. Remember roi alone means little....how many tables you have going is a HUGE factor.

Thirdly. If your not great at either game i would DEFINITELY say to learn cash instead. Theres way more money to be made, way more games to be played, far more freedom in terms of starting and stopping sessions, less annoyance if your connection [censored] up, etc etc. Cash is the way to go ESP for part timers. Its a quadruple win situation.

The only reason i still do sngs is that im slightly good at them now, and im making a good monthly clip (lol at 5-10 players averaging 5k/mth...) and i REALLY dont feel like starting over and sucking for 3-6 months before i match my current hourly rate. Im not in school anymore and have to pay for my life. Although one of these days im gonna have to suck it up and learn cash properly.

Pedro Brazil · #36 10-04-2007, 07:02 AM

The thing that really scares me are the top 10 money winners at the last 12 months (36-100, holdem 9-10 seated)on sharkscope. These guys are making between 23k and 37k/year. That gives less then 3k/month.

This number really sucks, considering these guys are probably the best/more hardworking at their level.

braminc · #37 10-04-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that really scares me are the top 10 money winners at the last 12 months (36-100, holdem 9-10 seated)on sharkscope. These guys are making between 23k and 37k/year. That gives less then 3k/month.

This number really sucks, considering these guys are probably the best/more hardworking at their level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those leaderboards dont say everything. A lot of those guys play several different limits, so thats not their whole profit. And guys also play different sites from time to time also 'masking' some of their total profit. Lastly, your not considering rakeback/bonuses which for high volume, higher limit players adds up to another 25-50k yearly.

MatteyA28 · #38 10-04-2007, 07:58 AM

Also most, if not all of those guys have other sources of income outside of poker. You can't 16 table sngs for 40 hours a week. Well you can but you should probably seek some help.

Ditch Digger · #39 10-04-2007, 08:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a profit ceiling, so the best and brightest move on to cash. (At least the ones who aren't crusty old dudes that don't like to learn new stuff. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

SNGs can only support so many good players at the higher buyins ($60-$100s). So marginal players tend to clog up the games, run bad, then move on to something else. Then the games get juicier, marginal players win some and start clogging up the games again... etc.

At the highest buyins, even the bad players generally don't give away a lot more ev than the rake. So the above-$100 pros are playing mostly for VPPs/rakeback - with some soul-shatteringly brutal swings.

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're really exaggerating. Good above $100 pros are playing for far more than rakenback. Also, 10 people making $5K/month of SNGs? I hope you were kidding. For one, every single person on the Sharkscope CardPlayer 07 Any Stakes leaderboard is making >$5K/month before rakeback. There's plenty of people making more than $5K per month of SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'll put my roll on the over of that number. A breakeven pro at the 100+ Sng's will make that in bonus and rakeback.

ukjw · #40 10-04-2007, 09:01 AM

im in the same boat as the OP except i am currently living in the UK and will be for a few more years, since i can play anywhere i want would sngs/MTTs be better than cash? im already average at sngs/MTTs but below average at cash and cash even tends to get under my skin at times