Landmark SNG #1000

I just hit a milestone, according to Sharkscope, having played in my 1000th SNG. It seems like a good time to put some thoughts to print, including the evolution of my game, a bit of my strategy, and my outlook for the future. My thoughts may be a little bit all over the place, perhaps more like miscellaneous ramblings. But, hey, it’s my thread, so I guess that’s okay.

I don’t play all that often, so it took me a few years to reach this point. I never deposited a cent, and I hope never to do so, although I did start getting rakeback about a year ago. I started with a freeroll donkament win, in Razz, and played $1 SNGs until my tiny bankroll allowed me to move up to $2, then $5. Generally I now play $10 STTs (exclusively non-turbo NLHE), although I drop back to $5 when I feel I’m off my game a bit. I only play one tourney at a time, but I’ll expound more on that later.

This seems like a good time to drop in a screenie or two, which shows that I’ve had some relative success over this period…

SNG 1000 Summary.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36383&d=1298739209)

SNG 1000 by Entry Fee.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36385&d=1298739322)

I think my early winnings at the lower levels were due mainly to a ton of patience, mostly driven by my desire to keep from losing my small bankroll. Given the relatively poor play of at least a third of the field, that game is so much a matter of survival. While those terrible players are just aching to turn over their chips, they’re as likely as anyone to suck out on the river and either knock you out or cripple your stack. Straightforward beginning poker is generally rewarded at these levels, and transparent play is rarely as costly as you might see at higher stakes.

Once you’ve outlasted the bottom third of the field, a random player is 50% likely to cash in a STT. That’s why I generally leaned on the 9 player SNG, although I had some success with 18 player structures as well while finding my niche.

SNG 1000 by Entrants.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36384&d=1298739322)

Which makes more sense in navigating the land mines while hoping to cash and preserve a small bankroll? A structure that pays 3 out of 9 or one that pays 4 out of 18? Despite the larger payouts of the latter, I would say the easy answer is the former.

The other thing that seems to have helped me is my intuitive understanding of probability and statistics. I have a math degree from 25 years ago and have worked as an actuary almost as long. Sure, I can calculate the likelihood that a flop will include an A, K, or Q to make my JJ suddenly less appealing, or that a board will have at least four of any single suit. I can talk somewhat intelligently about combinations and permutations.

But more importantly, I understand and appreciate statistical concepts like expected value and variance. I understand mathematical models that incorporate risk aversion and justify Player A folding QQ, AK or even KK pre-flop under certain conditions as well as Player B calling off his stack on a flush or open ended straight draw. I also understand the overly-used-as-a-crutch term “poker variance”.

What’s the likelihood of a solid player not cashing in 10 straight STTs? If we define a solid player as one who’s 40% likely to cash (a random player is 33% likely), then the probability of not making it past the bubble 10 consecutive games is (1-0.6)^10, or approximately 0.6%, which is about one out of 165 sets of 10 games.

If you register for 15 STTs at once and don’t cash in a single one, either your power went off or you’re a really bad player (perhaps just for that session, but don’t bet on it – irony intended!).

Yes, these are extreme examples, but I’m so tired of hearing so many players attribute all their misfortune to variance. It’s a lot easier to blame the laws of probability than to admit you might just not know everything there is to know about poker. Or that you occasionally experience lapses from what you know to be disciplined play which inevitably results in early exits that in thoughtful hindsight are clearly your own fault.

I’m as likely as anyone to become a little impatient when I go for prolonged periods without any playable hands, pushing the envelope by adding a few more hands to my playable list from whatever position I’m in, or calling bets with hands I know I should be folding. Worst of all, I might start playing KQ, the hand I regularly berate others for playing, in my mind if not in the chat box.

I also believe that this is a particular tendency to which a multi-tabler would be much less prone. If you’re playing 5 tables or more, you’ll see enough good hands that you probably won’t experience the impatience that I occasionally do. This is the one benefit I see to multi-tabling, even though I never do it.

Before you all start to berate me, I understand why there are plenty of people who play 5, 10, even 20 tourney’s at a time. Yes, it reduces the… ahem….variance… of their monetary outcomes. I’m sure it makes sense for many who are more than just recreational players. For me, it’s hard enough to focus on one table and still give my game, not to mention my wife and kids, the attention they demand (I mean “deserve”).

In my opinion, Multi-tablers are playing a different version of poker than I am. It might be a poor analogy, but it’s a little like a slot machine with 20 lines of payout. I’m focusing on my single $10 buy in (front and center), which isn’t really in the same league as someone who’s got $200 in play at a time. And those 20 lines really don’t get a whole lot of quality love and attention. Don’t believe me? Just last week, I saw two of three players fold to river bet on a board that included an A-high straight with no flush opportunities. I don’t know about you, but the nuts is usually good enough for me.

That game is more about using your tracking software to your best advantage, sticking to a strategy that you believe will be profitable over time, knowing that a small ROI, as long as it’s positive, is enough to make money. And if your strategy is a profitable one, then playing as many games per hour as possible is the best way to maximize your overall winnings.

So I check my opponents at the beginning of each game and note the multi-tablers in a particular color. Because I know that they’re more likely to fold to a raise, especially early in a tournament, unless they have a monster hand. And I know with a good deal of certainty that I’m better off folding my AQ, AJ, JJ, and TT against their early raise rather than risk my chips when I’m very likely behind. Fold those hands against a typical player’s standard pre-flop raise? Not a chance.

Since I mentioned it, I’ll tell you all that I don’t use any tracking software. Others have suggested that I do so, if for no other reason than to monitor my own tendencies in an effort to identify and hopefully correct any weaknesses in my game. I probably should at least download a trial version, but I suppose I’ll wait for a period in which I think I’ll be able to put in a little more time than I am currently.

My current philosophy on the game is that successful poker is a series of adjustments. Whatever one’s strategy, it has to be flexible enough to allow for adjustments, generally subtle, though occasionally significant, to evolving conditions. These include adjustments to both the competition and to the situation. I’m still learning how best to make these adjustments to maximize my likelihood of winning, but I know that they are applicable to actions within a hand, within a game, within a session, and particularly over longer time periods.

The stretches where I’ve struggled to break even are generally attributable to my inability to either recognize the need for adjustment, my struggles to identify and make the right adjustments, or perhaps my overreaction to a situation that didn’t require an adjustment. I know that’s a lot of ambiguity for one run-on sentence. But isn’t it better than just saying I was the victim of a bad run of variance?

Sure, I’ve had my share of statistically improbable losses. Like the rest of us, I feel like I get my chips in vastly more often when I’m ahead than behind. And as result, I hardly ever feel like I’m on the right side of a 20/80 upset. I’m guessing that probability runs pretty true, even though the suckouts against me feel like they’re coming in regularly, and way too often. The hands that make the most impression are the ones that are both highly unlikely and go against us. And when someone calls your all in with A-rag or QT, it only really matters that they made a donk move when their hand beats yours.

I see the following or similar comments all the time on this forum… “You want those players at your table. Those are the ones we make our money from.” I may be in the minority, but I’m not hoping to play against unpredictable, irrational players who don’t seem to value their buy-in enough to fold a hand they clearly ought to. What I want to see are relatively knowledgeable, predictable players who just aren’t as good at poker as I am.

For me frustration translates into impatience. If I’m lucky, I recognize it and step away from the game until I can deal with it. As a result, I took an entire month off in the fall of 2010.

Generally my strategy is one of tight, but aggressive play. I loosen up on my starting hands when stack size, position, or other factors warrant it. I favor the term “table dynamics” in rationalizing how I can shift from one extreme to another throughout a game. I like how the term means absolutely nothing and everything at the same time.

Perhaps the most interesting element of my strategy relates to short stack play, due to its relatively unconventional nature. Until recently, I was steadfast in my continued patience, probably until most of you would have long since committed all your chips with any two cards. I came back from the brink to cash, if not win, more than a few times using that approach. I’m still not sure where I should stand on that issue, but lately I’ve been shoving much earlier, and it hasn’t been paying off. If nothing else, it’s freed me up to start a new game or focus on something else.

While short stacked, I also continued to make my standard bet instead of shoving pre-flop when my remaining stack clearly indicated I was already committed. Eventually I realized too many opponents were shoving back with marginal hands, possibly not understanding I was obviously committed. That’s fine if I’ve got a premium hand, but not so great if I was trying to steal the blinds. So I closed that hole in my game, probably in minor debt to Poker Orifice.

As a recreational player, I’m mostly looking to enjoy my free time and learn more about poker as I try to improve my game. As far as my prospects for the future, I’d love to play a little more frequently. Since I currently play for stakes that are well within my bankroll, I think I might be better off moving up in stakes than I would be in multi-tabling at my current level, or even dropping a level to try it. I would think that my expected return would be greater in continuing to focus on a single tourney, despite the larger variance that goes along with it. I’d love to hear some objective opinions from others on that matter, since I’m really only working off impressions, not experience, in that regard. Any other questions, thoughts, advice or comments would be welcome as well.

Nice thread. It's good to see a sit-n-go grinder that's being successful. I agree with alot of your points. I also am impressed with your SS graph. Very consistent. Keep it up and keep us posted. GL

Grats on your results.

You are right about 1 tabling will give more expected return than multitabling, but your over all $/hr going to be lower.

I mean, your results are impressive, 40%+ ROI is amazing for 9 man, but because you only play 1 table at the end you make less, even you mention that take you a few years to reach that number of games.

For example, if you get a 40% ROI in $10 buyin games, you are winning $4 by game, but because only play 1 game your $/hr is $4/hr. If a player play 10 tables even if his ROI is way less (because not put the love to each table like you mention) maybe get 10% ROI, and instead of win $4 by game win only $1, but because he is playing 10 games in that hour make $1 x10=$10. So maybe is not a great player, and his ROI is not amazing, but at the end he spend the same time (1 hour), and he is winning $10/hr in the same time you make $4/hr, even if you are way better player. Another example, take a 5% ROI player that only win 50c by game, but 10 tabling give him $5/hr, still make more than the $4 with his tiny ROI.

Sure you can´t go to play 10 tables from 1 day to another, but even open 1 more table will make a difference. If your 40% ROI 1 tabling go down maybe to 30% 2 tabling, then you will make $3 for game, not $4, but because are playing 2 tables your final $/hr = $6/hr and you are not playing more days or more hours, are playing exactly the same time but winning more and just adding 1 more table. Also more games means more rake, and when you have rakeback means more $ just for playing. Mention this because you mention getting rakeback, but beause you only play 1 table not mean much, 1 tabling a $10 game with $1 of fee give you 27c in rakeback, meaning if you play 2 tables suddenly instead of get 27c you will get 54c (a player 10 tabling will get $2.70 in rakeback that hour of play for his 10 games) and that is aside of your results/winnings, so more volume means not only less variance, but more $/hr and more rakeback.

Hope this clear why players multitabling.

At the end you should do what is best for you. If your goal is to be a recreational player, enjoy the game and keep the good work. If have the BR to move up and want to keep playing just 1 table and feel good that way then that is the best for you. If want to win more need to start adding more tables.

Looking good, keep it up!

any idea why you have been break even lately? have the fish died off? have the regs got u pegged?

if you don't play regularly enuf on ft to achieve any ironman levels why not play at pokerstars? seems the battle of the planets would suit you perfect if you could do 20 in one week...as well as silver level perks

hard to argue with your strategy with the results you have ....maybe try 2 tables and stagger them ?

What is the Battle of the planets?

a weekly bonus competition at pokerstars for sng players taking your best 20 game block and /or 100 game block and paying out the top 100 scores for each stake level

really good your profit imo..but how many time you take to play 1000 sng?

I'll give your suggestion a little more thought, especially since I have this nice, big new monitor that seems conducive to playing a couple of tables as once. My initial thought, however, is that I'm better off focusing on one $20 table than two $10 tables. I suppose the field's skill level would be a little better at $20, but not much. And I would guess my ROI would suffer a little bit by focusing one two tables instead of one. Maybe it's a wash, in which case the lower variance and the opportunity to check out a tracking software would justify the exposure to multi-tabling, albeit a modest introduction.

My recent struggles to do much more than break even are a little perplexing. As I mentioned, I became frustrated with my results, and a little impatient as a result. Hence, the month I took off to clear my head and get away from poker for a while.

I seemed to be finishing 4th a lot lately, which is obviously the worst thing that can happen in one of these, from a time investment perspective. It also seems that I've had a little less luck accumulating chips early, whether the competition has improved, the field has a beat on me, or simply a probabilistic inevitability (i.e. variance).

Game #1000 was a pretty good example. Everyone seemed pretty tight, with 3 multi-tablers included, and only one player was gone as the blinds began to become relevant. I was dealt QQ from the button, and a short stack raised UTG+1. The chip leader, next to act, simply called and the others folded to me. I decided to shove my stack, figuring the short stack would call, but that if the leader had a premium hand he would have raised to single out the other. Well, they both called, one with AQ, the other with AK. Unfortunately the leader had the AK, and he caught a K to send me packing. Perhaps I was too aggressive, but I think I'd do the same thing again.

Coincidentally it took me exactly 1000 games to reach the 1000 sng mark... just kidding - I guess I started in earnest sometime in early 2007.

pfb8888, I'll check out the situation on PS, although my bankrolls is almost entirely at FT. Thanks everyone for your supportive comments thus far.

Why not play two $20 tables?

But yeah, definitely download the trials for PT3/HEM, if you don't like them then you don't have to use them, but I don't think you fully understand their benefit at the moment because having a HUD actually helps you make the adjustments that you speak of in your OP.

Oh yeah, congrats btw

Like CJ comment why not 2x $20?, the point is to start playing more tables, if still not sure you can try with your $20 table and open another in a lower level (what ever buyin you want $10, $5 or even $2), you can give all focus to your $20 table and the lower buyin can work for practice just to get the feeling to play 2 tables.

With time and practice get easy and when feel ready can load both at same level.

Congratulations on 1000 sng's!

Your thread is an example of how 1 tabling will improve your game. You obviously have a great sng game/strategy.

I agree w/ your short stack strategy in part. I play the turbo 9 man. Often times w/ 4 or 5 players left and I'm on life support I'll play "get through the blinds". If I have enough to get through the blinds I'll play my normal ranges. One hand gets you to 1000 or 2000 chips and then the comeback is on. A lot of times all you need is 2xbb to get people to fold while on the bubble.

I see a lot of players giving you encouragement to add more table. If you have goals that involve increasing $$$$ then I agree that adding tables would be a way to do that. I play 12 sng's at a time for the sole reason of making money.

Adding tables will not improve your game strategy or creativity. If you want to improve your game I suggest moving up in stakes and play one table. Analyze the players and develop plans to beat them and execute. Basically what you already do.

wow really excellent post. I think that you do need to expirement with all the options before you decide wether its better to 1 or 2 table or move up or rule out HEM/PT without ever having tried them at all.

But can't argue that your current strategy is solid and working well!

You really don't need tracking software, it's $100 for something you have little use for, playing 1-2 tables as a hobby. (honestly the advice you got to use them was horrible, but sure, use the trials.)

I say play whatever you feel like, however many tables you feel like playing. It obviously won't pay the bills or anything, but it's nice to have a hobby that makes a little extra $.