Evaluating SNG

Trying to determine a couple of things regarding SNG play.

1. Is there a standard ITM finishes (%) one should shoot for? Something along the lines of the statements below (I just made up the %).

"A winning SNG player finishes ITM ~50%"
"You generally need to finish ITM 30% to break even"
"Shoot for 10% 1st place and 40% overall ITM finishes"


2. Is there a method for determining optimal SNG tables? It seems that the more the players the higher (%) you must finish to get ITM.

For example (PokerStars):

* $1+.20 PokerStars SNG (9-player) pays top 3 places (33%)
* $1+.20 PokerStars SNG (18-player) pays top 4 places (22%)
* $1+.20 PokerStars SNG (45-player) pays top 7 places (15%)

Does it all come down to preference, skill (maybe you're better at 1-table), time available, etc.? What other factors should I consider? Feel free to point me to further reading.

TIA!

Please consider that 20% rake is too high.

Here is an article you might find useful.

1) ROI is the standard for measuring your success. ITM means nothing, really. Anything in the positive is nice, but if you're a 'good' player at the $1s, you should probably be able to get like %30+ I think. (correct me if I'm wrong, haven't played those stakes in ages).

2) I'd think it's pretty much a preference/what you're best at issue. It's not like the 1-tables are easier to beat or anything.

lol if you play $1 + .20, the .20 is prob gonna cancel whatever you'll be making.
choose tournaments that do not have rake that robs you

if you plan to play SNGs with $1 buy in, you should probably move to another site more focused on micro stakes. For instance, I started at everest where SNGs start at $0.10+.01, which has a decent 10% rake. They also have $0.25+.02, $0.50+.05 and $1+.10. Very cheap way to learn how play SNGs.

Thanks for the tips everyone. I think PokerStars has 10% raked turbo SNGs, I'll have to look into those.

This seems really high, 30% really? I thought most "good" players experienced ROI of 10-15%.

I'm probably aiming too high there, but in general at the micros you should be able to achieve a pretty big ROI, and as you move up the competition gets tougher, so the highest possible ROI gets lower (down to like %1 or %2 at the highest levels).

The fact that there's %20 rake probably eats into your winrate a lot too so you're probably more accurate with %10-%15 ROI.

Yeah, the higher rake definitely is definitely depressing my ROI.

Right now I'm focusing on my SNG game, trying to build a consistent ITM% before paying too much attention to my ROI%. My thinking is if I can improve my game to an ITM of ~40% I'll be in a great position to move up to the (less raked) higher SNG levels and start focusing on my ROI%.

I guess what I'm wondering is if it's worth paying the higher rake % at the lower level to better my SNG game @ $1+$0.20 level before moving up to the $5+$0.50 level?

Does this sound like a reasonably good plan to you seasoned players? I'd rather stay on PokerStars for now, at least until I build my BR a little more.

Thanks again everyone.

just focus on improving ROI and not ITM, even if you are trying to work on your game. high ROI means youre playing closer to optimally, high ITM means youre making money, but not necessarily as much money as you should be making

ITM isn't a measure of the level of your game/skill level, it's just a measure of how frequently you money. ROI isn't either, but it gives you an actual indication of how much money you're making.

EDIT: bad math proofs there

The purpose of STTs isn't to break the bubble, it's to make as much money per game as possible.

My current SNG ROI% after 110 games is ~6%. Actually, it's a bit better than that because I knew almost nothing when I first started. My sample is so small it's meaningless, I know. My point is I can immediately increase my ROI% by playing the lower raked PokerStars SNG, but I feel I would be moving up to the next level prematurely. I'm just not sure that I'm ready.

If I'd rather stay at PokerStars, does it make sense to continue $1+$0.20 for awhile?

its pointless to play $1 + .20 with 6% ROI because your ROI isn't even covering what you're losing in the tournament fees

find something with less rake, or make money in some other way and move up to a level where the rake doesnt rob you

Possible 6% is after the rake? Not sure how SS calculates this...

EDIT: Looks like it is:

Given my poor start, I'd say my current ROI is more like 12% after rake. I'll try to figure out what it is for the last ~50 SNG.

oh actually it might be after rake. either way, look for something with less rake

Okay, I'm nearing my PokerStars $50 bonus -- might be worth taking that and depositing to a good SNG site. Any recommendations?

once you start playing > $2 SNGs pokerstars is fine. certainly better than FT where you get crushed by rake unless you play above the micros

Okay, thanks for your input.

yw, sorry its been a while since i've grinded SNGs

Figured I'd see where I was with my last 50 PokerStars SNG. Overall 28% ROI (ITM 48%) after rake. I know this is a very small sample, but it's the best I have to go on. I knew less than nothing my first 50, whereas I like to think I know a little more than nothing by now.

• 9-Player $1+$0.20
  31 SNG
  21 ITM (67%)
  ROI 68% ($37.20 invested vs. $55.80 net)
• 18-Player $1+$0.20
  1 SNG
  0 ITM (0%)
  ROI -100% ($1.20 invested vs. $0 net)
• 45-Player $1+$0.20
  18 SNG
  3 ITM (17%)
  ROI -3% ($21.60 invested vs. $21 net)

Not enough games to evaluate your performance with 18 or 45 players SNGs obviously, but you do seem to master the single table version pretty well.

I'd say it's time to take a shot at a higher stake now. $5+.50 single table? Just make sure you set a maximum loss you allow yourself at this higher stake and move down to grinding the $1+.20 if you fall below.

I like to follow advice from this forum but it seems like there's conflicting advice on this forum. People always say practice good bankroll management, and I understand that. However above it says not to play the one dollar sit and goes. The next level that isn't a turbo (which have a higher luck factor) are 5.00 and 50 cent. I understand that the lower limits end up eating you alive in rakes, but what the hell should you do if you don't have enough of a bankroll to move up?

at 50 dollars should I move up to 5.00 for the better investments or stay at 1 dollar with the 20% rake? Which would you say is more important.

The way I do it is that I fix myself limits on the games I can play for each bankroll, and when my roll is close to those limits, it means I can take shots the higher stakes when I'm above and need to move down when I'm below. I tend to move up and down a few times before my roll rises again safely above the limit and towards the next one.

I think it would be reasonable for you to play the $5+.50 when you're above the $50 line and move back down to $1+.20 as soon as you fall below.

But to tell you the truth, I never had such a steep transition to make. I started my bankroll on a site that had $2.5+.25 SNGs between the $1+.10 and the $5+.50

with $50, try to see if the site offers $2 + .20, and play those if they are available

The next step on Pokerstars seem to be turbos at the 3.40. In my opinion turbos seem to let luck come into play a lot more, especially towards the bubble and end of the tournament. However their rounds last 5 minutes, a bit better than FullTilt's rediculous 3 minute blinds (insane in my opinion).

What do you guys think of this?

Personally I love turbos. Half the table usually donks themselves out. I prefer the 6.00+.50 9 person sit n go's. It just seems like I have better luck than when I play the 3.40's. Plus less % of rake! Also the 3.40's are 10 players.

thanks for the article Ag...good stuff....i learned a few things...and i love doing that!