Looking to SERIOUSLY improve - Page 3

BrassMonkey · #21 09-20-2006, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whatev - to each his own. I'll take one table of relaxed $109 with a higher ROI and better sit n' go skills (post flop and push bot) over 5 tables of $22 anyday.

-Brass

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are in it for the fun and pleasure, then yes. If you are in it for the money, then you got to be kidding [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

If we assume this choise the 22s win any day. If we assume hourly rate is the same in both places, then the 22s win easily.

You get in a lot of volume and so variance is quickly eliminated and you witness but a steady income. The singletabling 100$ sng'er will ... well ... god know how many hours before he will show a profit.

And while the 22s player can get by on a roll of say 2200$ the 100$ sng'er will have to have ... phew ... a slightly bigger roll.

Part of the fun playing poker is making a decent chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

You CAN make a "decent chip" single-tabling 12 $109s a day. Assuming 15% ROI, you can average ~$200/day. If you can handle the relative slowness of the swings, I don't see the problem. Gelford, I'm not trying to be combative. My point is as much to illicit constructive criticism, if warranted, as it is to refute your insistence that multi-tabling is the only real way to make money.

-Brass

inferno · #22 09-20-2006, 04:48 PM

just play 1 table, like me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

TravestyFund · #23 09-20-2006, 04:53 PM

1-tabling is for FISH

TravestyFund · #24 09-20-2006, 04:57 PM

12 109s a day doesnt = 200/day. If so Id make like 500/hr playing 109s.

BrassMonkey · #25 09-20-2006, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1-tabling is for FISH

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure is, and boy do they taste good...

Gelford · #26 09-20-2006, 05:01 PM

Sorry I you find me combatitive, it is not my intention, just discussing this.

No I do not argue that multitabling is the only way to make money, I am arguing two things. One is the above, that singletabling can be boring and more than one table is not forbidden, as long as you stay in your comfort zone.

And the second this is what we are discussing now, whether to play one table of 109 or five table 22, assuming the same hourly rate.

Yes you are right that assuming a 15% ROI (I will not get into if this is a correct assumption, that is irrelevant here) you will playing 12 of these get a average daily profit of 200$.

in this time you will play 60 22s and also get an average daily profit of 200$ (for the sake of simplicity)

If you play a week, then you will end up playing 84 109s or 420 22s.

The 22s are aproaching a sample size worth mentioning, but the 109 is nowhere near this. He might have won a bunddle but he might also have dropped 20 buyins.

His roll has to be way bigger and ... well .. given this choice, if you are in it to make a profit especially if you like to see it on a monthly basis, then it makes no sense to play a single table of 109s vs fivetabling the 22s

That is all ... apologies if you have felt me being over the top. It is late, I'm tired and slightly grumpy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

DevinLake · #27 09-20-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
12 109s a day doesnt = 200/day. If so Id make like 500/hr playing 109s.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I only played 12 109s a day, I'd average something like -1000k/day. But that's because I lose my first 5-10 all-ins every day, before I ever start winning anything.

BrassMonkey · #28 09-20-2006, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I you find me combatitive, it is not my intention, just discussing this.

No I do not argue that multitabling is the only way to make money, I am arguing two things. One is the above, that singletabling can be boring and more than one table is not forbidden, as long as you stay in your comfort zone.

And the second this is what we are discussing now, whether to play one table of 109 or five table 22, assuming the same hourly rate.

Yes you are right that assuming a 15% ROI (I will not get into if this is a correct assumption, that is irrelevant here) you will playing 12 of these get a average daily profit of 200$.

in this time you will play 60 22s and also get an average daily profit of 200$ (for the sake of simplicity)

If you play a week, then you will end up playing 84 109s or 420 22s.

The 22s are aproaching a sample size worth mentioning, but the 109 is nowhere near this. He might have won a bunddle but he might also have dropped 20 buyins.

His roll has to be way bigger and ... well .. given this choice, if you are in it to make a profit especially if you like to see it on a monthly basis, then it makes no sense to play a single table of 109s vs fivetabling the 22s

That is all ... apologies if you have felt me being over the top. It is late, I'm tired and slightly grumpy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it's cool. What YOU said was fine - I just didn't want you to think I was trying to get into a huge argument or anything when I wrote back.

I understand that it'll take longer to get to a really significant sample size this way, and it's cool that the bankroll requirements are smaller, but I'm not really worried about either of these, as I'm not yet doing this full-time. Hopefully by the time I AM, I will have put in enough time (I might step it up to two $109s eventually, but I didn't like it at $55s - I think there's a lot missed when you're not able to devote your full attention to what's going, even within a single tournament) to know for sure that I can beat $109s at a certain ROI. But yea, for someone who has taken that leap, the quick volume and low bankroll requirements are key.

-Brass

TheNoodleMan · #29 09-20-2006, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
pay z32fanatic $50,000 and he will teach you to make $40,000 per month.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great deal, btw.

schwza · #30 09-20-2006, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
focus on moving up a level 1 table at a time?

i don't think that tricky plays are the most important here

there's only so much 'reading' one can do at this level.. set a guy on a range of hands and raise or fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the OP asked how to "seriously" get better. The best way to really get better at sit n' gos, in my mind, is to concentrate soley on a single table's action. I guess some people can do that while 8-tabling, but I have my doubts.

I guess the answer to the question really does depend on what the OP meant by "seriously" getting better. If you want to learn to play optimally (not necessarily optimal $/hour), I think the very best way to do that is by give one table your complete concentration. Once you've got that down, you can add more tables. Chances are you're no longer playing your very best poker then, though.

-Brass

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I have become a much, much better player than what I was a few months ago, and have not played less than 6-tables at a time at any point. I think you improve faster by playing mutliple tables, up to a point, since you see soo many more situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. i think there is a point at which your learning slows down, but i'm pretty confident that 2 is much better than 1 (but 20 is bad). you want few enough tables that you can actually see what villains are showing down in your hands instead of calling a push and then having to jump to the next table.