what is better sng 6+1 or 10+1 ?

[kimos123]

Lets say your rio in $10+1 is a bit lower then the $6+1.

please correct me:
if you play 4 tables of $6+1 you will have 4 chances to win first.
if you play 2 tables of 10+1 you will have 2 chances to win, but if you win you will win more then the 6+1.

so which should i play? i dont know how to callculate the expectation.

you can assume that the RIO on 6+1 = about 30%
and in the 10+1 is about 22%

[pococurante]

Neither game is easier to beat, or offers better odds. The odds are equal for every player at both SNGs.

You should play whichever game you are better at.

[Gene Fish]

if you are better at shorter tables and are good LAG style, the 6 player is better...if you can play a really tight game, 10 player is better (i think), because you can usually double up early on if you just sit around and be patient (especially at lower limits $30 and less) - harder to double up super easy with 6 player because you are forced to play more hands.

[kimos123]

im sorry for the misunderstanding but i ment im my orginal post the choice between 9 players sng with diffrent buy-in
$6+1 or the $10+1

i want to know where do i have the better expectation to win more.

[Siegmund]

Seems like you answered your own question.. 30% of $6 is $1.80, 22% of $10 is $2.20.

In other words, as long as your ROI in the $10 game is more than 3/5 what it is in the $6 game you'll make more per game playing in the $10 game.

But, you said something about comparing FOUR $6 games to TWO $10 games. Are you saying you are more comfortable multi-tabling the lower buyin game? If you are talking about earnings per hour, you'll need to make the corresponding adjustments. (Four $6 games at 30% is worth $7.20, while two $10 games at 22% would be $4.40.)

[Pokerfarian]

Given you can't even spell ROI correctly, I doubt you can expect figures of 30%/22% at all.

[remski]

no one has even mentioned rake... obv. 10 dollar ones are better in this respect.