Is a positive ROI possible with turbo games??

[vonabruch]

very useful topic to the author and to all who answered thanks

 

[Ssssssnakes]

There is no magic number, where now you suddenly know your exact ROI. But realistically we are talking about a sample size of more than 1.000 SnGs, before we at least get close. After 40 9-man SnGs the standard deviation on ROI is 25%. And even after 500 the standard deviation on ROI is still 7%, which mean, that a marginal winning player could easily be losing over 500 games and vice versa.

Tournament Variance Calculator | Primedope

Thanks for the link. I'll keep that in mind as a little pacifier for when my bankroll goes flat

*edit*

Question: Isn't the deviation also showing that you shouldn't bank on MMTs as your success model in the long-run?

Because after all, even for single table games the number of games neccessary to get a bit of reliability into your system is so great that you'd have to play MMTs for at least a decade on a daily base to get any kind of useful information.

It's all a bit strange to me. Especially with the permanent 50:50 situations in play....

 

[pandafreeroll]

So far for me personally, roughly 33% of all hands played in a turbo SNG turned out to be the most successful range. What's the percentage that you consider optimal when it comes to turbo SNGs?

I don't think there's an 'optimal percentage', as the percentage doesn't directly correspond to the hands you play. If you choose to play only suited broadway combinations but more of the lower pocket pairs, you can arrive at the same percentage. I personally think low pocket pairs are stronger in turbos (I don't play turbos much except freerolls btw) because due to the low stacks people are more often willing to limp along with floats like A high, but it all depends on the table and your field position, so there definitely is no optimal percentage - due to variance, you would have to play far more hands than you get to in a tournament to arrive at whatever % your strategy prescribes anyway.

 

[fundiver199]

Question: Isn't the deviation also showing that you shouldn't bank on MMTs as your success model in the long-run?

MTTs have even higher variance than SnGs, especially since playing a certain number of them takes more time. But on the other hand a winning player can have a much higher ROI in MTTs, which will tend to shorten the duration of losing streaks. In my opinion small field MTTs are the most profitable games to play online, but you need to put in decent volume, and you should not expect every month to be a winning one.

The main reason, why I play SnGs, is because I dont always have time for MTTs. When I come home from work, I might want to play for a few hours but not for those 5-7 hours, which most regular speed MTTs will last, if you make a deep run. It has happened to many times, that I am sitting past my bed-time and just wishing, I would bust soon from some MTT, thats in the money but still far from the final table

 

[Ssssssnakes]

I don't think there's an 'optimal percentage', as the percentage doesn't directly correspond to the hands you play. If you choose to play only suited broadway combinations but more of the lower pocket pairs, you can arrive at the same percentage. I personally think low pocket pairs are stronger in turbos (I don't play turbos much except freerolls btw) because due to the low stacks people are more often willing to limp along with floats like A high, but it all depends on the table and your field position, so there definitely is no optimal percentage - due to variance, you would have to play far more hands than you get to in a tournament to arrive at whatever % your strategy prescribes anyway.

hm... I don't see much of an opportunity to discriminate the hands you play in turbo games. The blinds go up too fast for that as far as I have seen so far. The fewest are able to play their preferred style, mostly you have to have to mix the variables stack, blind level, position, hand and player(s) and then go for it.

That's why I see the percentage of played hands as the central metric at least for small turbo SNGs.

According to my stats btw, I usually have significantly lower percentage of played hands when not reaching the money (~20% VS >30%). It's usually combined with a table full of speculative bets and raises, where you have to go full risk as well.

To come back to my initial question: When it comes to MMTs, I don't see much of a chance to win turbo MMTs with a positive ROI, unless you're dealing with opponents who are too tight and who get eaten by the blinds. But as soon as you have players around you who know the rational, the whole tournament is turning into roulette.

PS: Unless of course, there is a player who consistently finishes his tubro MMTs with a positive ROI. (Haven't found one, yet.)

In my opinion small field MTTs are the most profitable games to play online, but you need to put in decent volume, and you should not expect every month to be a winning one.

Does that also count for turbo MMTs?

The main reason, why I play SnGs, is because I dont always have time for MTTs. When I come home from work, I might want to play for a few hours but not for those 5-7 hours, which most regular speed MTTs will last, if you make a deep run.

I think that might be part of the catch. Many players go for turbo MMTs, because they're much faster done, even though they might know the chance of having more than a temporary rush is slim to inexistent.

It has happened to many times, that I am sitting past my bed-time and just wishing, I would bust soon from some MTT, thats in the money but still far from the final table

I know that too. There should be some sort of a function in MMTs where you can limit your loss depending on your chip stack if you have to quit early. It would be like the risk limitation in cash games during all-ins.