Low-Stakes Multi-Tablers: Moving up to Career Play

[Collin Moshman]

Kevin writes:

[ QUOTE ]
My ROI would decrease, my amount of tables hourly would decrease, and I don't think extra attention would help anywhere near enough to make up for this ... Studying until I am beating my current game well enough to justify moving up with the same amount of tables is just a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, all SNG decisions are player-dependent.
However, I strongly disagree that your ROI would decrease. Also, studying can be particularly effective while you are actually playing (e.g., verbalizing the thought process, verifying you made a correct push/fold decision immediately after the fact with ICM software, etc.)

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

Venetian, there are certainly ample players hitting 10%+ ROI at $55's+, but I think few are 8-tabling (some certainly, but a minority). If you are looking to increase your ROI, the point of my post is you may want to consider decreasing the number of tables you're playing. It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Kevin writes:

[ QUOTE ]
My ROI would decrease, my amount of tables hourly would decrease, and I don't think extra attention would help anywhere near enough to make up for this ... Studying until I am beating my current game well enough to justify moving up with the same amount of tables is just a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, all SNG decisions are player-dependent.
However, I strongly disagree that your ROI would decrease. Also, studying can be particularly effective while you are actually playing (e.g., verbalizing the thought process, verifying you made a correct push/fold decision immediately after the fact with ICM software, etc.)

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

Venetian, there are certainly ample players hitting 10%+ ROI at $55's+, but I think few are 8-tabling (some certainly, but a minority). If you are looking to increase your ROI, the point of my post is you may want to consider decreasing the number of tables you're playing. It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I thought you meant that if someone takes up your coaching they would as a result get free money.

[blackize]

Collin, I think you're seriously underestimating how much money can be made grinding the low limits.

I was making $30/hr(also counting 300 breakeven games at the $24s) before taking rakeback into account 12 tabling $12s on Full Tilt. This was all done with very small swings, the knowledge that I was easily the best player at every table I sat at, and getting in a lot of volume. When I play in sets or few tables I tilt easier and take much more frequent breaks. When 12 tabling continuously I could grind for several hours at a time just because there is constantly something going on.

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Collin,

Again, when did you start reading this forum?

I've long been a proponent of fewer tables and more studying as the best way to improve at sngs. But it's been at least 2.5 yrs since 4 tabling was considered anything but beginner multitabling.

Also, I've been told by spacegravy that basically nobody is doing >10% at the 60s while 8+ tabling. This is not to say that it can't be done, but that it's very very difficult to do in the current sng climate.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]

Zasterguava, I apologize if my wording sounded tacky, but I am running a zero-price contest to promote my site. Entering is therefore +EV for the entrant, and that is all I meant.

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Pomoting your site AND offering coaching in a low-content post. Well played!

Well, if the mods don't care, on we go.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't long ago that 4-tabling was considered substantial....

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

Collin,

Again, when did you start reading this forum?

I've long been a proponent of fewer tables and more studying as the best way to improve at sngs. But it's been at least 2.5 yrs since 4 tabling was considered anything but beginner multitabling.

Also, I've been told by spacegravy that basically nobody is doing >10% at the 60s while 8+ tabling. This is not to say that it can't be done, but that it's very very difficult to do in the current sng climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, bones. You are offering actual content in this post. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Hasn't allways been the case that no-one really stays with SNG's all that long after learning to beat them soundly????

It appears that their are much higher limitations to how much you can earn playing SNG's as opposed to tourmanent or cash play, a wall/ceiling if you will.

I personally am trying to build a roll to give NL HE cash games a solid attempt. I honestly don't expect to move past the 27's before I do this.

Certainly there are a select few that appear to be quite comfortable in their limits and SNG's and are definately earning a decent living from them but it I personally don't see myself playing the same level of them 12-24 months.


How many people are considering playing SNG's here on a career level????

[Ditch Digger]

There is like 0 difference between 4 and 8 tabling. Anyone that thinks there is has never heard of PAHUD.

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]
I will take questions in this thread about making a living from SNG play (75%+ of income deriving from SNGs).

[/ QUOTE ]

How much of this 75% is from actually playing them?
And would encouraging a lot of shot-takers to move up help this number in any way?

[Little John]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Slim,

Here is a general answer for required monthly playing volume to hit your target SNG income.

Assumptions:
A decent living is $L/year.
If you N-table you can average around 1.5 N games per hour.
You work H hours per month, 12 months per year.
Your ROI at your buy-in of choice, B, is R% when you are N-tabling.

(R, in turn, is a function of N, B, and other factors such as your ever-changing competition. If you want to determine R based on these factors, I'd recommend a forum search.)

Math:

Then you play 12 x H x 1.5N = 18 x N x H games per year

Each game you profit B x R/100 $/game

Multiplying these last two terms and setting equal to $L tells us ...

Result:

H =

$L
-------
18 x N x (B R/100)

Example:

So for instance, if you can average 9% ROI 4-tabling the $55's and want to make $50k/year, you would need to work $50k / (18 x 4 x $55 x .09)
~ 140 hours. So you would have to average 140 hours a month of straight playing to hit your goal in this case, which equates to roughly 35 hrs/week if you include inevitable short breaks during the day.

The above formula for H is the general answer for how many hours/month you need to work to hit your target SNG income.
Clearly it oversimplifies -- R, for instance, will vary over the course of a year as you improve, face tougher competition, etc. But plug numbers into the above formula for H, and you have a rough idea of required playing volume to achieve your target yearly SNG income.

Best Regards,
Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

the funny part is i don't know if you are kidding or serious. you really think Slim or anyone that reads the forum does not know how to calculate this stuff?