Future of sng's online? - Page 5

GtrHtr · #41 10-04-2007, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

T is right, sup man! Where the [censored] you been?? 100k a month was done by I'm sure several posters but I specifically recall one. The top tier were in Tigerite's situation, basically 8 tabling the 215s for 20kish part time.

suzzer99 · #42 10-04-2007, 10:27 AM

billox, wtf do you think I'm trying to do by playing poker on the weekends?

Jhub, I said < 10 was probably low. But also remember OP said playing part-time. Tell me how many of those leaderboard people are there month-in, month-out. At the higher levels you can have a losing month, which is really going to wreck your monthly average.

braminc, I've played the 60s/100s on PS off an and on for about 2.5 years. I don't think the games have gotten way tougher or way easier - which is to say a 15% ROI at the 60s has always been a real good # to have over 1000 sngs. I don't know anyone who has run that well over 5k sngs in my tenure. Also I've seen countless players move up to the $225s+, eventually have a soul-crushing losing streak, then move on to something else. Only since the PS VIP program has anyone really been able to park at the $225s+ and make a living -- at least from what I've have seen.

Ditch, I wasn't considering rakeback or bonus.

jukofyork · #43 10-04-2007, 10:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you just have to go with which ever game suits you best. I gave up playing 6-max LHE about 18 months ago and decided to move to playing NL SNGs. I find that the simpler decisions make it much easier to play more hours without fatiguing and fatigue-induced mistakes are less costly.

Another important thing to consider is what is most likely to send you on a tilt. I find that I'm fairly immune to luck induced tilt (ie: cold cards, endlessly running into monsters, bubble spite calls busting you in 4th all day, etc), but what I can't handle so well is making a bad decision; I tend to beat myself up over it and too many bad decisions will send me on aggressive tilt, so the push/fold nature of SNGs seems to suit me better for that reason too.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

AMT · #44 10-04-2007, 11:14 AM

i think the biggest difference between "then" and "now" with the sng profitability is that everyones in a panic because they have to try to read hands and play postflop more often in sngs nowadays to be bigger winners when it is basically an unheard of concept by half this forum.

BicVicTheQuick · #45 10-04-2007, 12:10 PM

my decission was also quite easy...I suck at cash b/c its boring to me and this makes me play horrible!!! I need the kick that I can't just reload after making a mistake....

JSH06 · #46 10-04-2007, 12:33 PM

To answer the OP's original question: If you're asking which has more potential, it's definitely cash. As Suzzer said, there's a ceiling on what you can make in SNGs and you hit it pretty fast. SNGs also keep getting tougher and tougher and will probably continue to do so in the future to where high stakes pros are basically rakeback pros. The only reason I still play them is I have already put in a sh!tload of time at them and gotten very good to where I'm pretty close to that profit ceiling. I would actually still switch to cash right now but I don't want to switch games too early if I'm gonna be doing this for a while to avoid burnout. There's definitely a lot more people making $5K/month off of cash than SNGs though, and the highest hourly rates in SNGs don't even compare to the highest hourly rates in cash. So basically, if I were you, I would probably go the cash game route.

JSH06 · #47 10-04-2007, 12:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you f'n nuts? The games have gotten much, much tougher. More and more people have a decent/good understanding of push fold. There's more people who play very well. There's less complete fish that are just gonna donk off their stack early. The average player is much better. If SNGs were as easy as they were a year ago I'm pretty sure I could have a 15% ROI at $119s 8-12 tabling. Now I'd be lucky if I could get 8%.

suzzer99 · #48 10-04-2007, 01:14 PM

As a microcosm of what can happen at SNGs, look at the 6x$119s. They used to be sooooo soft. My first 100 I had an ROI of 75%. But I would only play one or two per set, because I thought they would take too much attention to play 8 at a time. I'm dumb.

So then the UIGEA came along and brought newt to PS. And JHUB moved up full time to the $119s. In a few months all the really bad regs were gone, and the mildly bad ones had gotten better. Now the $119s are on par with the average 9x$114, when those used to be wayyyyy tougher. And now Gramps is playing them.

Newt and JHUB basically strip mined the $119s and left a barren wasteland. Whereas under my gentle hand they were more of a renewable resource. Like the Lorax and the truff-alump tress or whatever. I have many more overly dramatic analogies...

BradleyT · #49 10-04-2007, 01:24 PM

Way back in the day you could get an entire mid-stakes SnG with no winning players at the table besides yourself. Now you'd probably have to table select low limit HU games for that to happen.

Guthrie · #50 10-04-2007, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you f'n nuts? The games have gotten much, much tougher. More and more people have a decent/good understanding of push fold. There's more people who play very well. There's less complete fish that are just gonna donk off their stack early. The average player is much better. If SNGs were as easy as they were a year ago I'm pretty sure I could have a 15% ROI at $119s 8-12 tabling. Now I'd be lucky if I could get 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. The games have definitely gotten tougher, partly because a lot of 2+2ers moved to Stars from Party, started at the lower levels and got stuck there.

But also because the donks have become much more aware of push/fold simply by watching. A year ago, I'd see donks popping off in chat several times a day berating some very good player for pushing junk, getting called, and losing. Now I'll bet I don't see that once a month.

In my case, the combination of more decent push/fold players, and more aware donks, has destroyed me. A year ago I was running 8% at the 16s and 27s, and had high hopes of significantly improving on that as I learned the game. Now I'm certain I'm a far better player than I was then, but I'm barely beating the rake. After yet another catastrophic month in September, I'm back to where I started in January.

To me at least, it makes no difference whether The Venetian calls me a little light because he knows I'm pushing wide, or a donk calls me because he doesn't know any better, once I get called, I lose.

I'm about ready to give up on SnGs, but as I try to move to cash, I have yet to discover how to win an all-in with the best hand.